Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Bermondsey Borough Council (Street Trading) Bill,

Rhymney Valley Water Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Shoreham Harbour Bill,

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.

Bethlem Hospital Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments

Barnet District Gas and Water Bill [Lords],

To be read a. Second time To-morrow.

London County Council (General Powers) Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Stoke-on-Trent Corporation Bill [Lords],

To be read a Second time To-morrow.

North Berwick Burgh Extension Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

CONSCRIPTION.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why it is necessary to introduce military conscription among the European population of Kenya Colony?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for COLONIAL AFFAIRS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): In the circumstances of a small and scattered white population living among a large native population it is obvious that the provision of an efficient and disciplined military force in on emergency, whenever that emergency might arise, cannot easily be ensured on a purely voluntary basis, and as the principle of compulsory enrolment was urged upon me by the representatives of the people concerned and was supported by the local Government, I agreed to its adoption.

Mr. SMITH: Is the introduction of compulsory service in East Africa likely to produce good relations between blacks and whites?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The natives are not concerned in any way in Kenya more than any other part of Africa. We have had questions in regard to raids from Abyssinia and circumstances on the frontier and the whole European population are, I think, unanimous in desiring a reserve force to be used in case of an emergency.

Colonel AFPLIN: Is it not a fact that the Dutch East India Colonies have had this regulation for the last 50 years?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not also a fact that we in Ceylon have not had this regulation in force, though we have been there for a 100 years?

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT (COMMISSION OF INQUIRY).

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the composition of the Commission of Inquiry in Kenya under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Feetham; and whether there will be an Indian representative on the Commission?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The Governor is addressing me by despatch on the membership of the Commission, and at present I cannot make any statement.

IRAQ.

JEWISH EMIGRANTS.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that about 140 Jewish families from Iraq and Kurdistan are stranded at Bagdad on their way to Palestine, where they are desirous of settling; that these settlers are possessed of sufficient means, having sold up all their property, but are being discouraged by the delays and are being put to considerable expense; what are the reasons for these delays; and whether he will give instructions for permits to be given as soon as possible to these people?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I informed the hon. and gallant Member on 5th July that I would make inquiries on this subject. I have not yet received a report.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: if I repeat the question on Monday, can I have an answer.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: If we get a telegram.

IMPORTS (BRITISH FORCES).

Sir FREDRIC WISE: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he contemplates putting a Customs duty on articles imported or consigned to the forces in Iraq?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: A recommendation was made on this subject by the Financial Mission which was presided over by the right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young), and whose report was published as Command 2438. The matter is under consideration, but no decision has yet been reached.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Is it possible to have a differential tariff in favour of British goods in a mandated territory?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I could not answer that question off-hand. I think it is certainly impossible if it is a "B" mandated territory. Whether that is equally true of an "A" mandated territory I cannot say.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Have our forces in any other part of the world the privilege of free imports?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I should require notice of that question.

Sir F. WISE: When is this decision likely to he taken?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It is bound up with a good many other questions which are the subject of rather voluminous despatches passing between the High Commissioner at Bagdad and my right hon. Friend dealing with the whole financial and revenue situation of that country.

EAST AND WEST AFRICA (OFFICERS' PENSIONS).

Sir R. HAMILTON: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any decision has yet been arrived at regarding the manner of calculating the pensions of officers who have been transferred between different Colonies in East and West Africa?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Not yet. This is part of the general question now under consideration, of the future arrangements for pensions in respect of service in more than one Colony. It also turns on the introduction of pension legislation, which is now being drafted, in the East African Dependencies.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Will it be possible to expedite the matter, seeing that it has been hanging fire for a number of years?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I sincerely hope so. I have come across several cases in my own experience of extreme hardship and difficulty. The adjustment of the different services is a very complex question. Everything that can be done will be done.

SIERRA LEONE (ASSESSORS' ORDINANCE).

Sir R. HAMILTON: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will call for a Return from Sierra Leone of the number of eases under the working of the present assessors' ordinance, in which the assessors, by majority or unanimously, have found the accused not guilty and the presiding Judge has found them guilty and imposed sentence?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The Return for which the hon. Member asks would be of no value unless it were complete and detailed, showing in each ease the reasons for the decision arrived at. The preparation of such a Return would throw a great deal of work on officers whose time is already fully occupied, and think the hon. Member will agree with me that I would not be justified in calling upon them to undertake it, as I doubt whether it would serve any purpose of value commensurate with the trouble involved.

COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS' SAMPLES.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 13.
asked the Secretary of State, for the Colonies what action has been taken by the Dominions and Crown Colonies to admit the free entry of British commercial travellers' samples and trade catalogues, as recommended by the Imperial Economic Conference in 1923?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: In Canada, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, and Southern Rhodesia provisions substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the Imperial Economic Conference are in force. In the Irish Free
State the question does not arise, as no duty is charged on printed matter of any kind. The resolutions of the Conference, relating to the treatment of British commercial travellers' samples and on the subject of trade catalogues and price lists, were communicated to the Governments of the Colonies and Protectorates in June, 1924. I have no reason to think that action has not been taken where needed in the sense of the resolutions.

EMPIRE FORESTRY CONFERENCE.

Mr. RAMSDEN: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will inquire as to what steps have been taken by the Governments of the Empire to carry out the recommendations of the Empire Forestry Conference in 1923?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It is likely that forestry will be one of the questions which will be discussed at the forthcoming Imperial Conference, and in that case it is hoped to ascertain what progress has been made by the various Governments concerned on the lines suggested in the Report of the Imperial Forestry Conference in 1923.

PUBLIC UTILITY WORKS (EMPIRE COUNTRIES).

Mr. RAMSDEN: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he has taken to encourage Empire countries to undertake public utility works and to apply for a contribution from the Imperial Government to enable them to initiate these development works on the lines recommended by resolution of the Imperial Economic Conference in 1923?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Effect was given to the resolution of the Imperial Economic Conference of 1923, to which my hon. Friend refers, by Section 2 of the Trade Facilities Act, 1924, and copies of that Act were sent, as soon as it became law, to the Governments of all the Dominions and to all Colonies and Protectorates, who were also informed of the establishment of the Advisory Committee set up to consider applications for assistance under the Section and of the procedure with regard to such applications.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Has any application been received by the railways of British Guiana?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The British Guiana question is really a separate matter. It has not gone through this particular Committee, but the question is being investigated at this moment.

INDIA.

UNATTACHED LIST.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can now use his good offices with the Government of India to get the Departmental warrant officers of the Department (India Unattached List) brought on to exactly the same footing as regards pay, allowances, and other concessions as warrant officers of the British service who are serving in India, and who as a rule go to India for only a brief tour of duty?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): The conditions for the India Unattached List are necessarily devised so that, taken as a whole, they offer attractions to volunteers from British Service units in India. I was not aware that they were proving inadequate but am asking for a report on the subject from India.

PROVINCIAL SERVICES.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the anxiety prevailing among the officers of the provincial services of non-Asiatic domicile, sonic of whom have been placed in positions of hardship, he can now make public the decisions already come to in regard to the extension to these officers of the provisions of the Lee Commission Report in accordance with the undertaking given by him?

Earl WINTERTON: Of the recommendations referred to in the second part of my reply to the hon. Member for Penryn on 7th June, part, are now under consideration and part have yet to he received from India. My Noble Friend is not therefore in a position to make any announcement of the decisions taken.

CURRENCY COMMISSION.

Mr. SC URR: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India when the Report of the Indian Currency Commission is likely to be published; and
whether it is the Government of India's intention to bring their proposals regarding the Commission's recommendations before the present Legislative Assembly?

Earl WINTERTON: Arrangements are being made for the simultaneous issue of the Report in India and this country, and I anticipate that publication will take place towards the end of this month. As regards the second part of the hon. Member's question, I am not yet in a position to make any statement as to the procedure to be followed in regard to the Report.

Sir FRANK NELSON: Does not the Noble Lord agree that it is highly undesirable to have any publication of the Currency Committee's Report during the interim period between publication and the announcement of the Government of India of what measures, if any, they propose to adopt? Does he not agree that such an interim period would produce very great speculation?

Earl WINTERTON: The intention of the Government of India is to publish the Report towards the end of this month.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: When the Government of India publish this Report will they also be able to publish the attitude the Government take towards the Report and the action they propose to take on it?

SALT DUTY.

Mr. SCU RR: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to paragraph 179 of the Report of the Taxation inquiry Committee, which suggests the granting of a strictly temporary advantage to Indian salt manufacturers either by way of a rebate of duty or of the imposition of a preferential duty on imported salt; and whether it is the intention of the Government of India to give effect to either of these suggestions?

Earl WINTERTON: The Committee considered that it is desirable that India should be made self-supporting in the matter of salt supply, if this end can be secured by the means referred to, and that an inquiry should be made by the Tariff Board into the aspect of the question. The Report of the Committee is under the Government of India's consideration.

COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS' SAMPLES.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 5.
asked the Ender-Secretary of State for India what action has been taken by the Government of India to admit the free entry of British commercial travellers' samples and trade catalogues?

Earl WINTERTON: Duty on samples brought by commercial travellers from the United Kingdom may under certain conditions be deposited or guaranteed by bond, and refunded on re-exportation within a prescribed period. The Geneva Convention on the simplification of Customs formalities, which has been ratified by India, provides for similar facilities as between the contracting States. Trade catalogues imported by packet, book or parcel post are admitted free of duty?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Have any changes been made since the Imperial Economic Conference of 1923 made its recommendations on the subject?

Earl WINTERTON: The Regulations were very voluminous. I will send my hon. Friend a copy. They are too voluminous to quote in a reply.

AFGHANISTAN (BOLSHEVIST ACTIVITY).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the statement which has just been made in Calcutta by the Director of Military Intelligence in India as to the menace to the safety of India owing to Bolshevist activity in Afghanistan, where it is stated that an Afghan air force is being developed, with Russian pilots and mechanics, with new aerodromes and landing grounds, and new military roads and railways; and what action is being taken by the Government of India in the matter?

Earl WINTERTON: I am aware that the statement has been reported in the Press, and my Noble Friend is inquiring by whose authority it was made. The situation in Afghanistan is being carefully watched by His Majesty's Government.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I draw your attention, Sir, to this
question and to the fact that Afghanistan is an independent State in friendly relations with this Government, and has a representative at St. James's? Is it a proper question to put?

Sir W. DAVISON: The Director of Military Intelligence in India is a British official, and surely we have a right to inquire with regard to reports made by him.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is the last part of the question.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the first part makes it quite in order.

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Mr. RAMSDEN: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the importance attached by the imperial Conference in 1923 to a policy of overseas settlement in the attaining of Empire well-being, he proposes to submit to the forthcoming Conference a Report of what His Majesty's Government have achieved since 1923; and, if so, whether, in view of the small results obtained since 1923, he will submit at the same time any concrete schemes for the provision of financial assistance from Great Britain to help in a continuous and scientific distribution of population within the Empire?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It is proposed that the question of oversea settlement within the Empire should be considered at the forthcoming Imperial Conference when the results which have been achieved since the Imperial Economic Conference of 1923 will be reviewed. His Majesty's Government are anxious to co-operate with Dominion Governments to the fullest extent possible in this matter; and the best means of further developing their policy in this respect will, I hope, be thoroughly discussed during the Conference.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Has there been any change in the Imperial Conference arrangements, in view of the political conditions in Canada:

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have not heard of any.

CEYLON (LICENSED PREMISES).

Mr. VIANT: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received a petition from the Panadura Mahajana Sabha with reference to the action of the Ceylon Government in overriding a Resolution of the Legislative Council of Ceylon and renewing a hotel licence in Panadura after the residents had, by the exercise of local option, voted for the closing of all licensed premises within the area; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the circumstances of this case with a view to determining the matter in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: A copy of the petition has been brought to my right hon. Friend's notice unofficially, but it has not yet reached hint through the official channel prescribed by Colonial Regulations. The Governor will doubtless forward it to him in due course with his Report and observations, and it will then receive his careful consideration.

EMPIRE TRADE (CUSTOMS INVOICES AND CERTIFICATES).

Lieut.-Colonel A. McDONNELL: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what has been done by various Empire countries since the Imperial Economic Conference in 1923 to secure the uniformity of Customs invoices and certificates throughout the Empire?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: One or other of the forms of invoice and certificate recommended by the Imperial Economic Conference in 1923 is in use in the Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa and Newfoundland, and generally in such of the Colonies and Protectorates as require certificates in respect of goods imported and where such forms are otherwise applicable.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is there any special reason why Canada is not included?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I should have notice of that question.

IMPERIAL RESEARCH ORGANISATION.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what action has been taken by research organisations in Great Britain and other countries of the Empire to exchange scientific and technical information, as recommended by the Imperial Economic Conference in 1923?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Arrangements have been made by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research for communicating regularly published and other information as to the work done under its auspices to Dominion Government research organisations and to the principal unofficial research centres. Similar communications are sent to the Governments of India and the Colonies. In return valuable information is being received by the Department from the oversea parts of the Empire. As regards agricultural research somewhat similar arrangements for the exchange of information between organisations in this country and overseas are in force; and it is proposed that a Conference on the subject of inter-Imperial co-operation in agricultural research should be held in the autumn of 1927. Invitations to this Conference were issued last year to the Governments of the Dominions, Colonies and Protectorates.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is there any interchange of information with the Dutch and French Colonies?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No direct interchange, but I may say that practically all our research officers get reports from places like Guiana and Java, and we follow the work of the French in this matter in the proper institutions of research in this country.

Mr. HADEN GUEST: Are the research institutions of the British Empire in touch with the great International Research Institute in Italy?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes, the great. International Institute at Rome, which deals with wheat and other primary products, is kept in close consultation. We consult with it, but that does not deal with the whole position.

Mr. GUEST: Would it be possible to have a Government publication setting out the present condition of these different research institutions?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have been going into that matter recently. There is a suggestion that by co-operation with the Imperial institute we might have more regular publication of the names of the research officers in different parts of the Empire and the main subjects with which they are dealing. It is by no means yet decided.

BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION (SALE).

Colonel DAY: 24.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he is aware of the fact that at a recent auction held to dispose of the Wembley Exhibition site and buildings an offer was made of £315,000, at which time the auctioneer stated that he had a better private offer and withdrew the sale of this property; whether he will state under what circumstances the sale was so withdrawn and what was the exact nature of the said private offer; what were the expenses for advertising, etc., and/or the fees which were incurred for and by the withdrawal of this sale; whether the present purchasers have agreed to pay the said expenses and fees in addition to the purchase price; and under what circumstances was it afterwards decided to accept an offer of £300,000 for this property?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The liquidators inform me that the property was withdrawn because a better offer than any made at the auction had been handed in in writing. Certain conditions in regard to existing liabilities were, however, attached to this offer, and, as a result of subsequent negotiations, the liquidators decided to accept a net sum of £300,000, the purchasers assuming the liabilities in question. The expenses of advertising, etc., which have to be defrayed by the liquidators, amounted to £6,000.

Colonel DAY: What are the liabilities mentioned by the hon. Gentleman in his answer?

Mr. SAMUEL: There were various liabilities. There were certain items in regard to the Stadium, of which, I believe, the hon. and gallant Member is fully aware; there were other items for rates and taxes, and several liabilities for-upkeep, all of which are now borne by the purchasers, and the consequence is the £300,000 offer is better than the other offer received to which I referred in my reply.

Colonel DAY: What is the value of these liabilities, outside those in respect of the Stadium?

Mr. SAMUEL: They all amount to much more than the difference between £300,000 and the best offer received in writing.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that £6,000 for a sale of this magnitude is out of all proportion to the usual charges in the profession of auctioneering?

Mr. SAMUEL: If that expenditure is very high, the reason is that, owing to the strike, the sale had to lie withdrawn and the advertising had to be done over again. To the strike must be attributed that high cost.

Sir COOPER RAWSON: Was any Member of this House interested as a director, or in any other financial capacity, in any of the syndicates offering to purchase?

EXPORT CREDITS GUARANTEE SCHEME.

Mr. GEOFFREY PETO: 25.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department when the conditions governing the new scheme for insurance against bad debts in export trade will he available?

Mr. WADDINGTON: 26.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department when the Regulations relating to the credit insurance scheme will be issued?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: The conditions which will govern the new Export Credits Guarantee Scheme have been drawn up and are now available. Applications for copies should be addressed
to the Export Credits Guarantee Department at 31, King Street, London, E.C. 2.

Mr. PETO: Is the scheme now to be available for exporters?

Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir.

AGRICULTURE.

SUGAR BEET (SEED SUPPLY).

Mr. CAMPBELL: 27.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps are being taken to assure an adequate and continuous supply of seeds for the new sugar beet industry in this country?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): Practically the whole of the beet seed used in Great Britain is supplied to growers by the factories with whom they have contracts, and the maintenance of a supply of suitable seed is, in my opinion, a matter that should properly be left to the industry in conjunction with the seed trade. We would naturally welcome the production of British-grown seed, and the National Institute of Agricultural Botany and the Crop Testing Stations have arranged experiments which would assist any grower wishing to establish beet seed production.

SURVEYS (AGRICTLTURAL CONDITIONS).

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: 28.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the special inquiries by the crop reporters are sufficiently advanced to justify detailed surveys of selected areas on the lines of the survey conducted by the Scottish Board of Agriculture?

Mr. GUINNESS: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman of my reply to a similar question on the 15th March last. I have again considered the suggestion that a survey should be undertaken into agricultural conditions in selected areas, but I feel that the best course to pursue in this matter is to wait until the general statistical Report, which is now in hand, has been published. I may add that a survey of agricultural conditions which was confined merely to a descriptive account of existing methods of farming would not be of great value, and would not justify the expense involved, while if it went beyond this stage it would involve the expression of
opinions on points of a very contentious nature. I am, therefore, very doubtful of the desirability of adopting the proposal, but I will give the matter further consideration at a later date.

Mr. BUXTON: When may we expect the statistical Report and is not the method of survey which is being adopted in Scotland one which has been carefully examined and which might be adopted here?

Mr. GUINNESS: We have examined the results of the survey in Scotland, and though the matter is of great interest, I do not think it would give the results for which many of those who are asking for this survey are pressing.

IMPORTATION OF CARCASES (PROHIBITION).

Mr. W. THORNE: 29.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, seeing that there is no evidence as to the danger of infection to British livestock from imported pigment which was consumed as pork, and that it is impossible to distinguish between pork imported for consumption and for other purposes, he will state whether before issuing a general embargo against pork imports from the Continent any inquiry, Departmental or otherwise, was held as to the possibility of distinguishing between pork as imported for the last three years to the London meat market and pigs unscalded and unscraped, such as were alleged to have caused foot-and-mouth disease in Scotland?

Mr. GUINNESS: No, Sir. As I have already stated, scalding and scraping of a pork pig does net destroy the virus. The scraping off of the epidermis which follows the scalding merely makes the disease more difficult to detect.

Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that unless something is done between now and September, when pork comes into season, that there is a prospect of the price jumping up another 25 per cent.?

Mr. GUINNESS: That is not the advice I have received. I am told that the present position of the London market is quite exceptional, and there is no reason for supposing that if London buys its pork from the rest of the country that any considerable change in the price will result.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many parts of the country the price of store pigs has increased considerably?

Mr. GUINNESS: There are fluctuations every year. There is no side of agriculture which suffers more from gluts and shortages.

Mr. LUMLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the North of England the price of pork has declined by half a crown per score during the last few weeks?

Mr. THORNE: What is your evidence?

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Mr. THORNE: 30.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, seeing that as a result of numerous outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease, early this year in East Yorkshire, involving the closure of local markets and affecting an area in which 60,000 fat sheep were ready for sale, in order to cope with the difficulty of marketing the animals within the infected area a co-operative abattoir was set up, from which meat was consigned to carious dead-meat markets under the supervision of his officers, he will explain what steps were taken in this case to ensure that this meat from an infected area did not spread contagion to districts free from the disease; and whether Regulations, similar to those adopted in this instance, could equally be applied to meat imported from the Continent?

Mr. GUINNESS: In the case in question the animals concerned had been under observation by the Ministry's veterinary inspectors for a considerable period, and the Ministry was satisfied that foot-and-mouth disease did not exist among them. Further examinations were made by the veterinary inspectors both before and after slaughter, and these precautions were considered sufficient to justify the action taken by my Department. In the case of foreign animals the position is entirely different, inasmuch as foot-and-mouth disease is so prevalent on the Continent that it would be practically impossible for any foreign Government to certify that animals or carcases proposed for export had not been exposed to Infection.

HOUSING (RURAL AREAS).

Mr. BUXTON: 32.
asked the Minister of Health the number of houses built in rural areas under the housing Act of 1924 for which a rent of 3s. 6d. per week or less is charged?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The authorised building schemes of local authorities include 6,883 houses which have been recognised as eligible for the additional subsidy available for houses in agricultural parishes, but statistics of the rents charged in respect of houses provided under the Housing Act, 1924, are not available.

Mr. BUXTON: Does the Parliamentary Secretary think that these figures show that the need fur rural houses is being adequately met?

Sir K. WOOD: Considerable progress has been made, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. I should be glad to see further progress made in this direction.

Mr. HURD: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether it would not be desirable to obtain evidence from typical districts of the present rents paid for Council houses?

Sir K. WOOD: I will consider that.

POOR LAW REFORM.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 33.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in the Bill which he proposes to introduce for the reform of the Poor Law, he will see that the right of the necessitous poor to adequate relief of their necessities given by 43 Elizabeth, cap. 2, will he safeguarded?

Sir K. WOOD: The scheme which my right hon. Friend has under consideration contemplates an alteration in the machinery of the administration of relief, but not in the law.

COAL TRADE DISPUTE.

MUNICIPAL PURCHASES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 34.
asked the Minister of Health whether the small municipalities who buy
Government coal during the present emergency will be permitted to distribute it?

The SECRETARY for MINES Colonel Lane Fox): I have been asked to reply. Yes, Sir, where this cannot be done satisfactorily through the ordinary trade channels.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Who is to judge whether it can he done satisfactorily?

Colonel LANE FOX: The Minister of Health will leave it to the local authority.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is this the position, that the Minister of Health is to tell the Secretary for Mines whether they will be able to distribute the coal they buy from the Secretary for Mines?

Colonel LANE FOX: indicated dissent.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Then it is most unsatisfactory.

POPLAR ELECTRICITY STATION.

Mr. LANSBURY: 43.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that during the months of May and June the Poplar Electricity Station consumed 6,182 tons of coal, and that during .this period the borough council were charged various prices for coal, these ranging from 100 per cent. above the contract prices; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made into this state of affairs and take the necessary steps to put an end to this profiteering?

Colonel LANE FOX: I have been supplied with particulars of this case, and I understand that of the amount of coal consumed 4,500 tons was taken from stock and was not affected by any rise in price. I am having the figures of the remainder analysed, but I may remind the hon. Member that in present circumstances, substantial increases over pre-stoppage prices are inevitable and do not necessarily involve profiteering.

Mr. LANSBURY: Why are these rises " inevitable "?

Colonel LANE FOX: A great deal of coal has been diverted from its normal course; a great deal has been distributed
in much smaller quantities and in a great many cases there has been an expense in lifting coal.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that not a single one of the reasons he has given applies in this case?

Colonel LANE FOX: I am having these figures analysed.

Mr. W. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this cake costs any more to produce, or whether the Government are simply relying on the law of supply and demand?

Colonel LANE FOX: Of course, we cannot ever ignore the law of supply and demand.

Mr. BROAD: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the danger of a stoppage which is profitable to coal-owners?

Colonel LANE FOX: I do not think there is much fear of this stoppage being profitable to anybody in the coal industry.

RESEARCH WORK.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 46.
asked the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that money prizes in every important country have played no small part in the development of aviation, he will consider the advisability of offering substantial money prizes for the most efficient and economical process for low-temperature carbonisation of coal, high-temperature carbonisation of coal, and the commercial utilisation of the by-products yielded by the respective processes, and, in view of the fact that we are very far behind other countries in using pulverised coal, if he will consider offering a substantial money prize for the best system for obtaining complete combustion of powdered coal, as the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research have expended £124.380 for the years 1924 and 1925 without lifting any of the existing processes from the experimental stage to be commercially practicable; and will he set up a small committee, the members having no connection with the coal industry, to get out conditions governing the award of the prizes, these prizes to be open to the scientists of the world, the committee to be formed on the lines of Lord Rayleigh's and Dr. Glaze-
brook's Advisory Committee on Aeronautics, that did sound reasoning and research work in helping aviation in the early days, and to be entirely independent of all existing coal-research organisations, and to have the first call on the resources of the National Physical Laboratory and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research in making a really big attempt to restore prosperity to the coal industry?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): I have been asked to reply to this question on behalf of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. The suggestion made in the question was brought to the notice. of the Royal Commission on the Coal Industry (1925) (Question No. 11,152), and they have made no recommendation of the kind, though they recommended several other means of promoting the end in view. Nor are the Government prepared to adopt the suggestion. I should add that the expenditure by the Department mentioned in the question applies to the whole of the Department's work on fuel research. Only about one quarter of the figure quoted has been devoted to research on low-temperature carbonisation.

DURHAM (WAGES AND HOURS).

Mr. BATEY: 49.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the terms of the Durham coalowners on which the pits will be restarted mean an increase of coal hewers' hours from one to two hours per shift, an increase of surface workers' hours of two hours per shift, a reduction of percentage from 110 per cent. to 89 per cent. and a reduction of the subsistence wage from 7s. 6½. to 6s. 8½d. per shift; and whether he proposes to take any steps to secure a modification of these terms?

Colonel LANE FOX: I have been asked to reply. The maximum time which men are allowed by law to be below ground is the same in Durham as in the other coalfields. Subject to that, the conditions in regard to both hours and wages are matters for arrangement between the mineowners and their employés, and I understand that the mineowners in Durham, as in other districts, have invited
the representatives of their workmen to meet them and discuss the offer which has been made.

Mr. BATEY: Will the right hoe. Gentleman say whether, under these terms, the coal hewers' hours in Durham are being raised by as much as two hours per day, and whether the subsistence wage is being decreased from 7s. 6½d. to 8½ a day, which is altogether contrary to what the Prime Minister promised?

Colonel LANE FOX: The Government are not responsible for the details of these offers at all. As regards the subsistence wages, the hon. Member has forgotten that the wages which he quoted carry with them certain allowances for rent and free coal.

Mr. LAWSON: has the right hon. Gentleman any reply to the statement that the owners of Durham have increased the surface hours from eight to 10, and is that part of the assurance that was given to the Prime Minister by the coalowners?

Colonel LANE FOX: No, bin. As I said before, the assurance was general. The subject which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned is one which will have to be negotiated between the parties. That is the only way in which a settlement can be arrived at.

Mr. BATEY: Has not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister promised that the miners would get a square deal, and that these terms are not a square deal?

Colonel LANE FOX: Then the miners must negotiate something better.

Mr. LAWSON: Is it not a fact that the Government came to the conclusion that in the case of Yorkshire the owners had violated the Agreement, and are the Government not of the opinion that this is an even worse violation of the assurance given by the Prime Minister?

Colonel LANE FOX: No; the point that arose in connection with the Yorkshire offer does not arise in the case of the Durham offer, where the ratio, which was not offered in Yorkshire, is offered. The hon. Member must remember that in the case of Durham and Northumberland the losses shown in the Report of the Coal Commission were worse than in any other district.

Mr. LAWSON: May we take it that the Government stand by a policy, not only of eight hours below ground, but of 10 hours for surface workers?

Mr. BATEY: As this is really an important question to us, and I put to the Prime Minister a question which has been answered by the Secretary for Mines, would I be allowed to repeat this question to-morrow to the Prime Minister, for we would like his reply?

Colonel LANE FOX: No, Sir; certainly not.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Prime Minister is quite entitled to delegate the answer to the Minister particularly responsible.

COLLECTION, LEYTONSTONE.

Major KINDERSLEY: 134.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that, at a. meeting held under the auspices of the National Unemployed Workers Committee movement near the Green Man, Leytonstone, on Sunday the 4th instant, a collection was made on behalf of the miners' children fund, that the speaker who made the collection publicly admitted that only 50 per cent. of the money collected went to the said fund, and that 25 per cent. went to pay the miners' speakers and 25 per cent. to the organisation he represented; and whether. in view of the proportion of the sum collected which was retained for organisation purposes, any steps are proposed to be taken in the matter?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the last part, the Regulations as to street collections do not apply to collections taken at open air meetings, and I have, therefore, no Power to take any action.

Major KINDERSLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether the money from Russia is distributed in the same proportion?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That I cannot say. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will be interested to know that the total collection at the meeting was £1 12s.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the right. hon. Gentleman aware that this has no connection whatever with the official policy of the Miners' Federation, and that. the people are giving their services free?

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin (Major Kindersley) has a mind on all fours with a London County Council sewer?

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

Mr. SPEAKER: I could not hear the remark of the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. W. Thorne).

Major KINDERSLEY: The hon. Member said that I had a mind on all fours with a London County Council sewer.

Mr. SPEAKER: That. is a grossly improper remark. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] I call upon he hon. Member to withdraw.

Mr. THORNE: Is it unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. SPEAKER: Yes.

Mr. THORNE: Then I am sorry for the Standing Orders. I withdraw

NURSING ASSOCIATIONS.

Mr. PENNY: 35.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the inability of nursing association committees to deal with the technical side of their activities, he will introduce legislation enforcing the composition of an advisory committee of local medical men in all cases in addition to the Regulations for inspection now in force?

Sir K. WOOD: It is clearly desirable that a nursing association which undertakes the management of an institution such as a maternity home should have the benefit or medical advice, but my right, hon. Friend doubts whether it would be expedient to attempt to enforce, by legislation, such a condition as my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. PENNY: Will the hon. Gentleman consider any alternative way of doing this? Seeing that these institutions rely to a large extent on local subscriptions, it would create confidence if they had local medical men to inspect them periodically.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member knows that in particular cases the Minister of Health has already made various sugges-
tions for improvement. If the hon. Member has any suggestions to make, I shall be happy to consider them.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can say when and where the Disarmament Conference of the League of Nations will take place?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): No, Sir.

ASSEMBLY (BRITISH DELEGATES).

Captain BENN: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can now give the names of the delegates to the Assembly of the League of Nations in September?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I would ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to postpone this question.

Captain BENN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the information has appeared in the "Times"?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have not seen it

CHINA.

CANTON GOVERNMENT (BRITISH CORRESPONDENCE).

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if His Majesty's Government has been in correspondence with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Government of Canton?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: It has always been the practice of His Majesty's Consul-General at Canton to correspond directly with the competent Chinese authorities in that city and it still continues. This does not imply any degree of recognition of the local government as other than the provincial administration of Kwangtung.

SALT REVENUE.

Sir F. WISE: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the total
revenue of the salt gabelle for 1925; and who has now the control and administration of the revenue?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The net revenue from the salt gabelle for 1925, after meeting administrative expenses, amounted to ․73,634,000, of which sums amounting to ․33,030,000 were either retained locally or appropriated by provincial authorities or military Leaders. The system of collection of the salt revenues of China was reorganised with foreign assistance in accordance with, the terms of the loan agreement of 1913. Under this system the revenue is received locally by collecting banks and remitted to the foreign banks charged with the service of the loans secured upon the salt revenues. This system is still in force, except in the Province of Kwangtung, bust the amount appropriated by provincial authorities and military authorities has tended to increase in recent years.

SUDAN (GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S RESIGNATION).

Captain EDEN: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the authorities responsible under the 1899 Agreement have been consulted in regard to the resignation of the Governor-General of the Sudan?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir; His Majesty's Government, for their part accepted Sir Geoffrey Archer's resignation but that resignation does not become effective under the 1899 Agreement without the concurrence of King Fuad, which was duly obtained.

Sir F. WISE: When will the new appointment be made?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot say. I am not prepared to make any recommendation at present, but the concurrence of King Fuad must be obtained, as it was, for the resignation.

GENERAL STRIKE.

TRADE UNIONISTS (PENALTIES).

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 44.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that branches of trade unions are imposing fines, with the alternative of
expulsion, upon members who remained at work during the general strike; and if he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to give protection to such persons?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): Up to the present, 31 cases have been reported to the Ministry where penalties of fine, expulsion or refusal of benefit were imposed by unions on their members on account of action during the general strike. In 21 cases the penalty has been cancelled, and in the remaining 10 cases the Ministry is still in communication with the unions concerned. Up to the present, therefore, the position does not seem to be such as to call for special steps in advance of the general consideration which is being given to these and allied matters.

Colonel WOODCOCK: When will the hon. Gentleman get the hundreds that have not been reported?

Mr. BETTERTON: That is obviously a question which I cannot answer. Up to the present the number is as I have stated.

Commander WILLIAMS: Why is it that in some cases the leaders of the unions systematically refuse in any way to take these fines away?

Mr. T. KENNEDY: Is not the practice suggested in the question a common practice among employers when their interests are involved?

Mr. BETTERTON: I cannot reply. The question I was asked was about certain blanches of trade unions which have imposed fines upon members who remained at work during the strike.

Mr. KENNEDY: is not this practice common among federated bodies of employers

Mr. BETTERTON: That I cannot answer.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Can the hon. Gentleman let the House have the names of the unions? It is unfair to have a general statement. He knows, as we know, that he has taken up the matter with certain unions, and it would be fairer to let the names be known.

Mr. BETTERTON: I will certainly consider that with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. HURST: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Transport Union is inflicting fines of £1 on loyalists who worked at the Manchester and Salford Docks?

Mr. W. THORNE: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to whether the rank and file of members did not themselves make their own rules, and agree to abide by them?

Mr. LANSBURY: In pursuing his inquiries will the hon. Gentleman investigate what happens to a doctor or a lawyer who is not loyal to his own class?

Mr. BETTERTON: No doubt all these considerations will be taken into account.

Commander WILLIAMS: Will my hon. Friend particularly look into the case of the builders' unions, which deliberately stopped the men building houses under the Chamberlain scheme?

CHARGES OF FRAUD, STRATFORD.

Mr. RHYS: 66.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the sentences inflicted at Stratford Police Court, on 19th and 26th June, on certain residents of Dagenham, Essex, who were found guilty of fraudulently obtaining relief from the Romford Board of Guardians during the general strike and, if so, whether he is taking any steps to review these sentences?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am in consultation with the Justices about these cases.

CIVIL SERVICE.

Sir W. DAVISON: 70.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the dissatisfaction which has been occasioned in the Civil Service by reason of the action of the staff side of the Civil Service National Whitley Council, in approving of the action taken by the General Purposes Committee during the general strike, when it called upon all civil servants not to volunteer for any emergency duties for which volunteers were asked in the national interest; whether he is aware that out of 27 members composing the staff side of the Civil Service National Whitley Council 13 are not civil servants at all; and what action it is proposed to take to protect the Civil Service from being exploited for political purposes?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the last part, I cannot for the moment add anything to the reply which has been given to previous similar questions, but I hope to be able to make a statement on the subject before the House rises.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very serious dissatisfaction among members of the Civil Service, and, seeing that it has been the proud boast of the Service for so many years that they are not influenced by polities but only by their duty to the State, is it not very urgent that this matter should be dealt with as soon as possible?

Mr. McNEILL: I think I know as much on that subject as my hon. Friend can tell me, and more.

IMPERIAL CONFERENCE (AGENDA).

Mr. HADEN GUEST: 45.
asked the Prime Minister what subjects will be considered by the Imperial Conference which is to meet in October next; what will be the dates of meeting and the order of business; and what will be the probable duration of the Conference?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the agenda for the Imperial Conference has been drawn up; and, if so, what subjects it is proposed to discuss?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I will answer these questions together. I am not yet in a position to add anything to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for North Southwark (Mr. Guest) on 5th July, but I hope that it will be possible for a statement on the subject to be made in the course of this. week.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: I will put the question down again for Monday next.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE.

Major HILLS: 47.
asked the Prime Minister when the House is to be given a further opportunity of discussing the creation of a Ministry of Defence?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer y hon. and gallant Friend to the answer
which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) on the 15th April, arising out of a statement on Business.

Commander BELLAIRS: Does riot that involve either of the two political parties asking for a day, and in view of the widespread demand for a day for discussion, may we have one?

The PRIME MINISTER: In answer to a subsequent question in February, I think I said that if there were a general desire expressed I would consider it, but no communication, as far as I know,, has been received through the usual channels.

THAMES BRIDGES (ROYAL COMMISSION).

Sir W. DAVISON: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can now inform the House as to the constitution of the Royal Commission on Thames bridges and their approaches, and the proposed terms of reference?

The PRIME MINISTER: I ask my hon. Friend to pospone this question.

FILMS (BLIND BOOKING).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 52.
asked the President of the. Board of Trade whether, following the vote of the cinematograph exhibitors with reference to blind booking of foreign films, any immediate action is contemplated and whether his Department will continue to do all in its power to encourage the largest possible proportion of British films being shown upon the screens in this country?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: The President of the Board of Trade expects to receive in due course a report from the cinema industry regarding blind booking, and will then be prepared to discuss with representatives of the industry the best way to give effect to its views on that matter. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: In view of the enormous importance of the question, as to which I know that the hon. Gentleman agrees, will he do all that is possible to see that something practicable is available before the Imperial Conference meets?

Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, I agree that the whole thing is very important. But we cannot act until the trade has made up its mind; we wait for the Trade to make the next step.

Commander WILLIAMS: Is not this a matter of more advertising?

MIXED ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL.

Sir F. WISE: 53.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how long is the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal likely to continue; and how many sittings do they have each month?

Mr. SAMUEL: The answer is a long one, and perhaps my hon. Friend will agree to its being published in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

It is not possible to state at the moment how long the Mixed Arbitral Tribunals constituted under the Economic Sections of the Treaty with Germany, Austria and Hungary are likely to continue, as this depends upon factors such as the withdrawal of cases, settlements out of Court and the submission of new cases, of which no estimate can be made beforehand. It is hoped that the Anglo-Bulgarian Mixed Arbitral Tribunal will complete its work very shortly. There arc three divisions of the Anglo-German Mixed Arbitral Tribunal. Two of these divisions sit in public to hear cases for a total of 24 days a month, excluding the legal vacations, and, in addition, meet almost daily on private deliberations on their cases. The other division sits daily and deals with eases for the most part by summary jurisdiction without public sittings. The second division also acts, with the substitution of one member, as the AngloAustrian, Anglo-Hungarian and AngloBulgarian Tribunals, whose sittings are determined by the number of the cases ready for hearing at any particular time.

RUSSIA (BRITISH CREDIT FACILITIES).

Mr. SCURR: 54.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the exports to Russia from the United States of America for the year 1925 exceeded
those from Great Britain to the same country, and are increasing; and whether, seeing that American banking and financial houses give more favourable credit facilities to Russia than are given in this country, His Majesty's Government intends to extend credit facilities to Russian trade?

Mr. SAMUEL: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. The official trade statistics issued by the United States Government show that goods to the value of 69 million dollars, or a little over £14 millions, were exported to the Soviet Union for the whole year, 1925, while the official "Trade and Navigation Accounts" of the United Kingdom show that exports to Russia from the United Kingdom amounted to something over £19 millions during the same period. The. United States exports, therefore, did not exceed those from the United Kingdom to the Soviet Union. During the first three months of the calendar year 1926 exports Irma the United States of America to the Soviet Union showed a progressive decrease.
As regards the second part of the question, I am not aware that American houses are giving longer credit than British houses.

POST OFFICE (LIQUOR ADVERTISEMENTS).

Mr. HAYES: 55.
asked the Postmaster-General the duration of the present contracts entered into for advertisements from the liquor trade in post offices, telephone cabinets, etc.; and what action he proposes to take on the expiration of the existing contracts?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): The individual contracts with advertisers are made not by the Post Office, but by its advertisement contractor. They are numerous, and their duration varies. The governing contract is that between the Department and the United Kingdom Advertising Company, Limited, and I cannot forecast the Department's policy in 1936, when that contract expires.

Mr. HAYES: Can the House have an assurance from the Postmaster-General,
now that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced a Betting Tax, that we shall not have starting price agencies in our public institutions?

Viscount WOLMER: I must have notice of that question.

Mr. THURTLE: May we take it that the Noble Lord does not regard liquor advertisements as being in any sense more immoral than recruiting posters?

EDUCATION.

TEACHERS' SALARIES (BURNHAM SCALE).

Mr. MORGAN JONES: 57.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether the difficulty which has arisen as between the Board and the Essex County Education Authority in relation to the application of the Burnham scale has now been settled; and, if so, whether he is in a position to inform the House as to the nature of the settlement?

Sir EDMUND TURTON: 56.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether, seeing that by the Education Act, 1921, local education authorities are given control of all expenditure required for the purpose of maintaining and keeping efficient all necessary public elementary schools within their areas and empowered to appoint necessary officers and to assign to them such salaries as they think fit, he obtained, or will obtain, an opinion from the Law Officers of the Crown as to the legality of the Board's proposed action before including in the draft code a Regulation to the effect that the scales of salary for teachers must be in conformity with the Burnham award of the 27th March, 1925

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: With the hon. Member's permission I will answer this question together with No. 57, which I understand refers to the same point. I am advised that the Board of Education have power to make a Regulation laying down as a condition of grant such a scale of teachers' salaries as appears to the Board to be proper and necessary in order to secure educational efficiency, and that such a condition does not conflict with the provisions of the Act of 1921 referred to by my hon. Friend. I am, however, anxious to meet, so far as possible, the
views expressed by the County Councils Association and other bodies as to the form of the draft Regulation, and I, therefore, propose to proceed by way of Amendment to the Regulation for Substantive Grant. The necessary Amendments, which will take the place of Articles 18, 11 and 9 of the draft Regulations for public elementary schools, secondary schools and further education, respectively, as well as of the temporary Regulation of 2nd February last, will be published in draft to-morrow, and I will circulate the text in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: May we take it from the official answer that the Burnham scale will be applied without distinction to education authorities throughout the country?

Lord E. PERCY: I do not think that arises out of this question. The position, as the hon. Member knows, is in negotiation, and I do not want to make any statement at the present time.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Are we to understand that the alteration to the Regulations which the Noble Lord proposes, wilt make it possible for the Board to pay amounts where the local authorities refuse to pay the Burnham scale?

Lord E. PERCY: If the hon. Member looks at the new Regulations, he will see that it makes no difference whatever.

Following are the texts of the draft Amendments:

DRAFT, DATED 12TH JULY, 1926, OF THE ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (SUBSTANTIVE GRANT) AMENDING REGULATIONS No. 1, 1926, PROPOSED TO BE MADE BY THE BOARD OF EDUCATION UNDER SECTION 118 OF THE EDUCATION ACT, 1921 (11 & 12, GEO. 5, c. 51), WITH REGARD TO THE PAYMENT TO LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITIES OF SUBSTANTIVE GRANT-IN-AID OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION.

The Board of Education hereby make the following Regulations:

1. The existing Regulations hereby amended are the Elementary Education (Substantive Grant) Regulations, 1925.
2. After Article 7 of the existing Regulations the following Article is inserted as Article 7A, which shall take the place of the provisional Salaries of Teachers (Public Elementary Schools) Regulation, 1926:

"7A. Further condition of Grant as to Salaries.

(i)The payment of the Grant in full is conditional upon the Board being satis-
fied that the salaries of teachers are such that no occasion arises for a deduction from the Grant as in this Article provided.

(ii) If any scales of salary in schools provided or maintained by an Authority are less than the scales of salary laid down in the Burnham Award of the 27th March, 1925, where such scales are applicable, and if, in the opinion of the Board, the efficiency of the provision made for elementary education for the area is thereby endangered, the Board may make such deduction from the Grant as will, in their opinion, secure that the expenditure by the Authority, falling to be met from the rates, shall not be less than such expenditure would have been if the scales of salary in question had been in accordance with the scales laid down in the Award.

(iii) For the purpose of this Article the Burnham Award includes allocations of scales of salary made by the Standing Joint Committee on or before the date of the Award."

3. Article 8 of the existing Regulation shall have effect with the substitution of "Article 7 or 7A" for "Article 7."

4. These Regulations may be cited as the Elementary Education (Substantative Grant) Amending Regulations, No. 1, 1926.

DRAFT, DATED 12TH JULY, 1926, OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION (SUBSTANTIVE GRANT) AMENDING REGULATIONS, No. 2, 1926, PROPOSED TO BE MADE BY THE BOARD OF EDUCATION UNDER SECTION 118 OF THE EDUCATION ACT, 1921 (11 and 12 GEO. 5, C. 51), WITH REGARD TO THE PAYMENT TO LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITIES OF SuitSTANTIVE GRANT-IN-AID OF HIGHER EDUCATOR.

The Board of Education hereby make the following Regulations:

1. The existing Regulations hereby amended are the Higher Education (Substantive Grant) Regulations, 1925, as amended by the Higher Education (Substantive Grant) Amending Regulations, No. 1, 1926.
2. After Article 4 of the existing Regulations the following Article is inserted as Article 4A:

Further condition of grant as to Salaries.

(i) The payment of the grant in full is conditional upon the Board being satisfied that the salaries of teachers are such that no occasion arises for a deduction from the grant as in this Article provided.

(ii) If any scales of salary in schools or colleges, whether provided by an Authority or not, in which the Authority accept responsibility for the salary scales, ate less than the scales of salary laid down in the Burnham Award of the 27th March, 1925, where such scales are applicable, and if, in the opinion of the Board, the efficiency of the provision made for higher education for the area is thereby endangered, the Board may make such deduction from
the grant as will, in their opinion secure that the expenditure by the Authority, falling to be met from the rates, shall not be less than such expenditure would have been if the scales of salary in question had been in accordance with the scales laid down in the Award."

3. These Regulations may be cited as the Higher Education (Substantive Grant) Amending Regulations, No. 2. 1926.

LONDON UNIVERSITY EXTERNAL DEGREES.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 58.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether the Government propose to take steps by legislation to set up a statutory commission to give effect to the Report of the Departmental Committee on London University, which would favour the abolishing of the external degrees of that university?

Lord E. PERCY: The Government have introduced a Bill in another place to set up a Statutory Commission to give effect to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee. But if the hon. Member will look at paragraph 8 of the Committee's Report he will see that it is explicitly stated Butt none of their recommendations is in any way designed to restrict the present facilities available for external students, or to prevent their development. This statement corresponds with the views of the Government, and it will be the duty of the Statutory Commission under the Bill to carry out the Committee's intentions in this matter.

MOTORING SUMMONSES, LONDON.

Colonel DAY: 59.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of summonses in respect of motoring offences which have been withdrawn by the police authorities in the Metropolitan area on the grounds that the person so summoned served as a special constable during the period of the general strike

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): 104, Sir.

Colonel DAY: Is the tight hon. Gentleman aware that in one ease a Member of the other House had four summonses brought against him, and they were withdrawn on this account?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that a gallant colonel, as befits a soldier, should associate himself with the forces of law and order?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: In regard to individual cases I must have notice.

ALIENS.

LONDON (REGISTRATION).

Colonel WOODCOCK: 60.
asked the Home Secretary the total number of aliens shown on the register of the Metropolis for the years 1913, 1924 and l925 and of these what were the numbers who were Russians?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The figures desired for the end of the years 1924 and 1925 were given by me in answer to the hon. and gallant Member for the Fareham Division on the 8th of this month. There was no similar system of the registration of aliens in this country before the War.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether the persons now on the aliens list are likely to become permanent?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That would involve tremendous investigations. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will put down another question.

LANDING PERMITS.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 62.
asked the Home Secretary what is the average period allowed to the 1,161 aliens, shown in Cmd. Paper 2671, who were given permits to land in this country in connection with the Ministry of Labour; and what number of these persons were given extended permits?

Sir W. .JOYNSON-HICKS: My hon. and gallant Friend is apparently under the impression that all permits are issued for a limited period. That is not the case. In cases where a period is imposed the maximum is twelve months anti the minimum one week. About 75 per cent. of the permits issued are for a limited period and no extension is granted unless the employer can show that the continued employment of the alien is necessary and that no British subject is available for the work which the alien is to perform.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether the greater number of permits and extensions are in regard to persons who are here for business purposes?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Almost entirely. In cases where work is undertaken, the Minister of Labour is always consulted and he has to be satisfied.

DEPORTATION.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 65.
asked the Home Secretary what was the number of aliens recommended for deportation in 1925; how many of these were deported; and how many undesirable aliens still remain in this country because the country of their origin refuses to have. them back?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There were 278 aliens recommended for deportation in 1925, and of these 203 were in that year sent out of the country. The rest are either not yet ready for deportation or are still under consideration. I cannot give figures in answer to the last part of the question, but I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that I take all possible steps in proper cases to rid the country of undesirable aliens.

Sir F. HALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this Russian gentleman whose name has been so prominent before the public lately has been sent back to Russia? We do not want him here.

LOST PROPERTY OFFICE, LONDON.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 61.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that 68,115 deposits were returned to owners through the Metropolitan lost property office; and whether he will consider whether this office could be made self-supporting by requiring all owners to pay a small fee when property is restored to them?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: A fee is already charged in the case of articles found in public carriages, and is paid by way of reward to the driver or conductor who deposited the article. The question of charging a fee towards the expenses of the Lost Property Office is under consideration.

Mr. HADEN GUEST: Is it possible to keep the office open a little later in the
evening and not close it at four o'clock? It would he very much to the public convenience if the office might be kept open later.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The office is to be moved during the autumn to more commodious premises, and I will consider whether an alteration in regard to hours can be made.

Mr. BASIL PETO: Will that involve working more than seven hours a day?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It might.

LIQUOR CONTROL BUILDINGS, SILLOTH.

Captain HOWARD: 63.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the State Management Scheme (Liquor Control) Authorities have erected buildings at the Solway Hotel, Silloth, which transgress certain by-laws of the local urban district council; that these buildings have been reported upon as dangerous by the local surveyor, as being constructed of timber on top of an existing timber building, and that his officers have declined to meet the wishes of the local urban district council or in any way conform to its by-laws; and whether such action received his sanction?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This matter is still under discussion with the local authority, and I should prefer not to make any further statement upon it at present.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Mr. TOWNEND: 36.
asked the Minister of Health what decision he has come to respecting excepted persons over 45 years of age who desire to become voluntary contributors under the Widows,' Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, but who, under the conditions laid down in the Act, will only receive pensions ranging from 1s. to 10s. per week according to age of entry; and what modifications he proposes, if any?

Sir K. WOOD: Amendments in the draft Regulations increasing the available benefits in certain eases have been agreed to by my right hon. Friends the Minister
of Health and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The amended Regulations will be published very shortly.

MOTOR VEHICLES (TAXATION).

Colonel DAY: 67.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now able to make any statement as to the petrol tax plan, in substitution of the existing horse-power tax upon motor vehicles?

Mr. R. McNEILL: My right hon. Friend is unable to add anything to what he said on this subject in the Budget statement.

HOSKINS & SON, LIMITED (GOVERMENT CONTRACTS).

Mr. THURTLE: 71.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many Government contracts have been placed with Messrs. Hoskin & Son, Limited, of Trinity Street, Birmingham, since the present Government came into office, and the total value thereof?

Mr. McNEILL: Since November, 1924, the Admiralty have placed nine contracts for miscellaneous fittings with Messrs. Hoskins & Son, Limited, to a total value of approximately £6,400. During the same period the Army Ordnance Department, on behalf of the Air Ministry, made one local purchase of dressing wagons, the value of which was £63, 7s. 6d.

Mr. THURTLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the contracts he has mentioned represent the total number of Government contracts made with this firm during the period specified?

Mr. McNEILL: Yes, so far as I am aware. I have been inquiring into them, and those are all that I can find.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are details given in the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" which show contracts other than those which he has mentioned?

Mr. McNEILL: No, I am not aware of that.

Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELD: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think
that this question is merely the vanguard in a campaign of insinuation and slander?

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE OFFICE, PLYMOUTH.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 72.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will explain why three ex-service temporary male clerks in the Customs and Excise Office, Plymouth, have received a month's notice of dismissal, seeing that these men by reason of their qualifications and service are within the category of the new P-class appointments, and the services of other temporary male clerks who are ineligible to compete for the P-class appointments are being kept on in the same Department?

Mr. McNEILL: The two temporary male clerks employed in the Customs and Excise Department at Plymouth, at present under notice of discharge, have, in common with other temporary male clerks in the same catogories in that Department, been given such notice in order to make way for ex-service men who were successful at the recent competitive examination. The principles which are being observed as to the order of discharge of temporary male clerks are those laid down in the Lytton Report.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to look into this matter again, seeing that an injustice has plainly been done to these men?

Mr. McNEILL: No, I do not think I can accede to that request.

VISIT OF M. CAILLAUX.

Captain HENN: May I ask whether it is the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take an early opportunity of making a statement in the House with reference to the visit of M. Caillaux, and any results that may come from it?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): Yes; I hope to lay Papers at 5 o'clock to-morrow.

DISCOURTEOUS INCIDENTS.

Major COLFOX: I desire to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether your attention has
been directed to the behaviour of certain Members on Thursday last, both in another place and towards an official of another place, and whether you are prepared to make any statement on the subject to the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: I regard the incidents to which the hon. and gallant Member for West Dorset (Major Colfox) has referred as a gross indignity to myself as well as to the House as a whole. I am placed here to protect the rights of this House. But before rights come duties, among which not the least is courtesy. Members will realise my sense of shame at the breach of courtesy to an officer of Parliament, bringing a Message to this House, and my deep regret, which T. know is shared by the House, for the further discourtesy when I attended in the House of Lords.
The Standing Orders do not give me power to deal with such incidents, but the final words of Standing Order 18 reserve the right of the House to deal with the conduct of its Members in other ways, and if there should be any repetition of Thursday's incidents, I shall not hesitate to ask the House to take adequate action

Major COLFOX: Will you, as Speaker of this House, take the earliest opportunity of publicly expressing to their Lordships' House the very profound regret which is felt by 95 per cent. of the Members of this House for the unmannerly occurrences of last Thursday?

Mr. W. THORNE: You want Mr. Speaker to go on his belly!

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think it necessary to add anything to what I have just said.

Major COLFOX: May I ask whether there is any chance for this House publicly to apologise to their Lordships' House?

Mr. HARDIE: Get down on your hands and knees!

Mr. SPEAKER: I said what I had to say in the name of the House as well as of myself.

Mr. LAWSON: As one who was standing at the Bar of the other House something like two hours before any of those incidents which you have men-
tioned, concerning the reception of Black Rod in this House, occurred, and as one who took some part in interjections in the other House, may I say that the noble Lords in the other House seem to have forgotten the fact that that they were dealing with standards of life—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. SPEAKER: I have been very careful to deal only with matters which concern ourselves in this House.

Mr. LAWSON: May I say, very emphatically, that the conduct of the noble Lords in the other House in this very serious business with which they were dealing was positively indecent, and under similar circumstances I would repeat the protest.

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. SPEAKER: We can deal here only with our own affairs.

Mr. STEPHEN: Arising out of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask you if, when Black Rod comes to this House, this House has no opportunity or right to say whether or not it shall receive Black Rod at the time?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not propose adding to what I have said to the House.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is it not implicit in the very fact that Black Rod knocks at the door of this House that this House has the right to say whether or not Black Rod shall be admitted, and the constitutional liberty of Members—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. SPEAKER: If there should be any interference with the liberties of this House, I will protect them.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Mr. BECKETT: By your leave, Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask the permission of

the House to make a personal explanation and to amend some remarks of mine made on 20th May, in the Debate on victimisation after the strike in connection with the wholesale newsagents' business. I have been in further negotiation with Messrs. W. H. Smith and Son, the largest employers in the wholesale newspaper and book trade, who are not members of the Wholesale Newsagents' Federation, and they inform me that they have now re-engaged all but four of the forty trade union officials who were members of their staff, and that at no time did they enlist the services of the police force against their employés. I wish, therefore, to withdraw the statement that every active trade unionist had been refused re-employment, and regret that in the report of my speech an incident in which the police were concerned, which occurred in the street, should have appeared as if it had occurred on this firm's premises.

I make this statement in order to prevent any suspicion of unfairness to these employers. The information upon which my statement was based was only partly applicable to this firm. As nobody more than myself wishes to see a completely equable relationship established in the settlement, I wish quite clearly to express my regret to Messrs. Smith and Sons, and to this House for having supplied information which was not thoroughly correct in all its details.

BUSINESS OF THE ROUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the Report of Supply [7th July] be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 270; Noes, 84.

Division No 362.]
AYES.
[3.51 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bird. Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Balniel, Lord
Bundell, F. N.


Albery, Irving James
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft


Amery, Rt. Hon- Leopold C M. S.
Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Beliairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.


Apsley, Lord
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Brass, captain w.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Bennett, A. J.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Berry, Sir George
Briscoe, Richard George


Atholi, Duchess of
Betterton, Henry B.
Brittain, Sir Harry


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Haslam, Henry C.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hawke, John Anthony
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Pete, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)


Bullock, Captain M.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Pielou, D. P.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Herbert, S.(York, N.R.,Scar. & Wh'by)
Plicher, G.


Burman, J. B.
Hills, Major John Waller
Pliditch, Sir Philip


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hilton, Cecil
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S J. G.
Preston, William


Campbell, E. T.
Hogg. Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Ramsden, E.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Holt, Captain H. P.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Remnant, Sir James


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Rentoul, G. S.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hopkinson, A (Lancaster, Moseley)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Chapman, Sir S.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ropner, Major L.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Clayton, G. C.
Huntingfield, Lord
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hurd, Percy A.
Rye, F. G.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Hutchison, G.A.Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Wife, Sir Edward M.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Cooper, A. Duff
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Cope, Major William
Jacob, A. E.
Savory, S. S.


Couper, J. B.
James. Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington., N.)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mol. (Renfrew, W)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Univ., Belfast)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lamb, J. Q.
Skelton, A N.


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd,Hemel Hempst'd)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon, Sir Philip
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Locker-Lampson. G. (Wood Green)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovll)
Locker-Lampson. Com. O. (Hands'th)
Smithers, Waldron


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Loder, J. de V.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Looker, Herbert William
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Dixey, A. C.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Drewe, C.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richa'd Harman
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden,E)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Lumley, L. R.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Edmondson. Major A. J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Ellis, R. G.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
MacIntyre, I.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
McLean, Major A.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Macmillan, Captain H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Ford, Sir P. J.
Makins, Brigadier.General E.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Malone, Major P. B.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Forrest, W.
Mannigham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Margesson, Captain D.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Fraser, Captain Ian
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Vaughan-Morgan. Col. K. P.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis, E
Mason, Lieut.-Col, Glyn K.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Gadle, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony
Merriman, F. B.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Meyer, Sir Frank
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Gates, Percy.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Goff, Sir Park
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Grace, John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Grant, Sir J. A.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Greenwood, Rt.Hn.Sir H. (W'th's'w, E.)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Crofton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Murchison, C. K.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Grotrian, H. Brent
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Wolmer, Viscount


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Womersley, W. J.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wood, E.(Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hythe)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich,)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Hammersley, S. S.
Nuttall, Ellis
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hanno, Patrick Joseph Henry
Oakley, T.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William



Hartington, Marquess of
Pennefather, Sir John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Penny, Frederick George
Colonel Gibbs and Mr. F. C. Thomson.




NOES


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Harney, E. A.
Potts, John S.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Harris, Percy A.
Purcell, A. A.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hayes, John Henry
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Barr, J.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scurr, John


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Broad, F. A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bromley, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, .T. I. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Snell, Harry


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cove, W. G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stephen, Campbell


Dalton, Hugh
Kelly, W. T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Day, Colonel Harry
Kennedy, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Dennison, R.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Thurtle, E.


Duncan, C.
Kenyon, Barnet
Tinker, John Joseph


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Lansbury, George
Townend, A. E.


Gardner, J. P.
Lawrence, Susan
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Gillett, George M.
Lawson, John James
Viant, S. P.


Gosling, Harry
Lowth, T.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon Josiah


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lunn, William
Whiteley, W.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
MacDorald. Rt. Hon.J. R.(Aberavon)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Groves, T.
Mackinder, W.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Grundy, T. W.
Montague. Frederick
Windsor, Walter


Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)
Morris, R. H
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)



Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Oliver, George Harold
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardle, George D.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. A. Barnes.

Orders of the Day — MINISTERS OF THE CROWN. COMPANY DIRECTORSHIPS.

The following Notice of Motion stood upon, the Order Paper in the names of Mr. ARTHUR, HENDERSON and other hon. Members, followed by a number of Amendments in the names of other hon. Members:
That, in view of the statement of the Minister of Health made in this House on the 8th day of July, 1926, a Select Committee be appointed to consider how far in the public interest a Minister of the Crown may be associated with a public or private company during his term of office, or with any company which is in contractual relations with the Government of which he is a member, and to report.

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Arthur Henderson.

Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: rose—

4.0 P.M.

Major COLFOX: On a point of Order. I desire to know if there are any means of ensuring that a definite decision will be come to at the end of this Debate, and that, after the Closure has been applied, as undoubtedly will be the case, and all the words after the word "That" have been left out, the Motion will not then be talked out and nothing appear on the Records of the House. Does the Closure Motion, supposing it be moved, entitle you, Sir, to put the Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," and, then, when those words have been left out, to put the Motion with the Amendment incorporated.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter with which I must deal when the occasion arises. It is always competent for the House, if it so wish, to complete the Question under consideration, including the Amendment, if the assent of the Chair be given.

Mr. HENDERSON: I beg to move,
That, in view of the statement of the Minister of Health made in this House on the 8th day of July, 1926, a Select Committee be appointed to consider how far in the public interest a Minister of the Crown may be associated with a public or private company during his term of office, or with
any company which is in contractual relations with the Government of which he is member, and to report.
I notice on the Order Paper a number of Amendments, and the wording of those Amendments renders it necessary for me to remind hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that this question, in one or other of its aspects, has engaged the attention of the House on several occasions in years gone by. We were reminded on Thursday of a very important Debate on this question which was initiated on the 10th December, 1900, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). Again, in 1906, the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman had to submit to a considerable amount of heckling at the hands of a very ardent Conservative Member, Mr. Claude Hay, who was. then a Member of the Opposition. On that occasion, Sir Henry was invited to define the private companies of which be deemed it proper that Ministers of the Crown should hold directorships, and he gave this reply:
The company of which my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General is a director is a private family company.
Mr. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will define the private companies of which he deems it proper that Ministers of the Crown should hold directorships.
Sir HENRY CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN it is impassible to give a definition in precise terms. What is meant is that class of company in which the interests of the Minister, being a director, is substantially the same as the interest of a partner in a. business firm.
Again, in 1924, the present Parliamentary Secretary of the. Ministry of Health (Sir K. Wood) called attention to the case of Mr. Frank Hodges. I suppose we must take it for granted that the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) and Mr. Claude Hay, the then Conservative Member for Hoxton, and other Conservative Members who have. interested themselves in this question when in opposition were always actuated by a desire to maintain proper standards of public propriety, and were in no sense engaged in throwing mud at their political opponents. But if the Parliamentary history of this subject be. kept in mind hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will find that they have not very good grounds for all the talk that has been engaged in since we gave
notice of our Motion and for all the language that has been used in the Amendments on the Order Paper, where reference is made to
an organised campaign of calumny and
insinuation.
At any rate, history shows, and it should be kept in mind, that those who are talking to-day so freely about attacks upon personal honour and of clearing the air of poisonous vapour are not like Caesar's wife, above suspicion.
The Motion raises two distinct issues to which I must give attention. First, the issue of Cabinet Ministers holding directorships in public or private companies; and, secondly, the question of investments in any company in which the Minister has an investment or is a director, that company having contractual relations with the Government of which the Minister is a Member. The Motion asks for an inquiry through a Select Committee, and we on this side of the House believe, when the case has been made out, as it will be made out to-day, that such an inquiry is of essential importance. In stating the case for the Motion, I am not going to enter into censure. I am going to state facts. I will try to allow the facts, as they are known to me in this particular case, to speak for themselves.
I first come to the question of directorships. The Minister of Health, in his statement on Thursday last, admitted to the House that he had retained his directorship in the firm of Hoskins and Sons. He also referred to a statement made during the Debate in 1900 by Colonel Milward that the firm of Hoskins and Sons was mainly the business of Mr. Neville Chamberlain. That admission is of the greatest importance, and we want to try to understand the sense in which the reference was made in the Debate of 1900. What was the defence then set up by the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain? It was a defence that cannot possibly be set up to-day, and that is where the significance of the reference comes in. The defence of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain was the smallness of his investment in the concern, and the insignificant amount of work that was being done for the Government Departments at that time. May I be permitted to quote a few sentences from the speech that Mr. Chamberlain made on that occasion:—
Here, without my knowldege, involuntarily, by a casual accident, which I could not possibly foresee, it appears that I, in investing in a neutral company, became perhaps interested to the extent of £60 in a company which does 5 per cent.—I do not know what it is, but let us say 5 per cent.—of its business with a Government Department. Work it out arithmetically, and it will be found that my interests in Government contracts in this matter is confined to a few pounds or a few shillings.
I repeat, as I hope I will be able to show, that no such defence can be put to the House to-day on behalf of the Minister of Health. One more quotation, which has some bearing on this Debate, I may perhaps be permitted to give from the speech of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain. Speaking of his relations, including his family, he said:
They are sought for as directors and chairmen of companies, because they are known not to be, to use a proverbial expression, guinea pigs, that is to go into a company without large proportionate interests of their own, and without giving the best of their time and their labour to the work of the company.
Coming back to the firm of Hoskins and Sons to-day, I find, according to the returns—and I am not going to apologise for the use that has been made of the returns at Somerset House, because I think, for purposes of greater accuracy, it is well, if we are going to make a case at all against colleagues in this House, that we should go to the very best official documents in order to obtain the facts upon which we are going to base our case —the Minister of Health holds 2,395 shares out of a total of 5,000 ordinary shares. Thus the position of the Minister of Health, as I have already hinted, is entirely different from that of his illustrious father in 1900. I noticed there was a disposition on the part of the Prime Minister the other day to accept the maxims that had been laid down in 1900 or 1906 by the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. If those maxims have to be applied then, in my opinion, they in no sense fit the present case. During that 1900 Debate there was a very important statement made by Mr. John Burns. In the course of the Debate he quoted the Lord Advocate—the Conservative Lord Advocate—as having stated on the previous 8th May:
There may be certain directorships which would involve a conflict of interest, and if there were such directorships I am certain nobody on this Government Bench
would continue to hold them. Of course, no Minister would continue to hold a directorship which brought him into contact with the Departments of the Crown dealing with Government contracts.
That was the statement in 1900 of a Conservative Lord Advocate. Doubtless we shall be told, as we were on Thursday last, that the right hon. Gentleman has observed the conditions that have stood since 1906, which were laid down by the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman on the Liberal Government coming into office. If that claim be made, and if it be confined solely to a directorship of a private company, I think the claim could be sustained. If, however, it is claimed that Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, in 1906 or at any other time during his Prime Ministership, approved in the slightest degree of Ministers being directors of private companies in contractual relations with any Government of which the Minister was a member, then I say that in my judgment no such claim can possibly be sustained. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman considered the small private family company, as was shown in the answer I read at the opening of my remarks, most like a partnership, but he was well aware, as I believe most Members of this House are aware, that should a member of a private firm enter into contractual relations either as a Member of this House or as a Minister of any Government the Disqualification Act, 1782, would undoubtedly apply.
This brings me to the question of Members holding shares in a company having contractual relations with the Government. I take, first of all, Hoskins and Sons. The contracts to which I am about to refer are entered in the "Ministry of Labour Gazette." I have the dates here. They can be quoted if necessary. I have the material concerned in the contract. All can he quoted if necessary, but, unless I am challenged, I will merely, in order to save time, quote the dates of the contracts: January, 1925; April, 1925; August, 1925; October, 1925; December, 1925; January, 1926; January, 1926. Thus, this company, Hoskins and Sons, have received seven contracts since the present Government came into power. The "Ministry of Labour Gazette" shows that during the eight months of the Labour Government in 1924 the same firm received only one contract.
I now come to the connection with Elliott's Metal Company. In the last return of this company to Somerset House, 5th October, 1925, the Minister is shown as having 23,250 ordinary shares in this company, and I believe I am right in saying that, as in the case of the first company I referred to, the Minister is the largest shareholder connected with it. Since the present Government came into office this company have had 14 Government contracts. Perhaps I ought to say in fairness to the Minister—[Laughter]. As you do not like it, I will not say it. I will occupy my time in giving you a few more contracts. With regard to this company, the contracts are as follow. I have again the names of the Departments, the nature of the material, the date upon which the contract is entered in the "Ministry of Labour Gazette." The dates of the contracts are: May, 1926, Post Office; May, 1926, Colonies; April, 1926, Colonies; April, 1926, Admiralty; January, 1926, Post Office; December, 1925, Colonies; October, 1925, Post Office; October, 1925, Post Office; September; 7925, Post Office; July, 1925, Post Office; June, 1925, Admiralty; June, 1925, Post Office; February, 1925, Post Office; January, 1925, Post Office. May I contrast the position I have just brought to; the notice of the House with the position of an hon. Member of this House as it was revealed to us in a letter which you, Mr. Speaker, read from the Chair an. 10th February, 1925:
MY DEAR MR. SPEAKER,
I send you herewith copy of the letter-which I have received from the Secretary to the General Post Office, with copy of my reply thereto.
Immediately I received the letter from the Secretary to the General Post Office I took legal advice as to my position, and I am informed that, although the contracts referred to were entered into prior to my adoption as a candidate, and were trivial in amount, the fact that I held them at the date of the General Election made me incapable of being elected a Member of Parliament.
Under these circumstances I desire to-express to you, Sir, and to the Members of the House, my sincere apology for taking part in the proceedings of the House, whilst at the same time assuring you that in so doing I acted in absolute good faith."— [ OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February, 1925; col, 41, Vol. 180.]

Captain MARGESSON: That was a private business.

Mr. HENDERSON: I am told that was a private business. I am well aware of that. But in stating a case such as I have to state to-day, it is absolutely essential, I think, to bring out the contrast between the position of the private Member in a private firm and the company which is nearest related, according to Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, to a private firm, namely, a private limited company.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): The right hon. Gentleman is confusing two companies. This is not a private limited company. Elliott's Company is a public company.

Mr. HENDERSON: I am well aware that Elliott's is a public company. This refers, as was shown by my last remark, to a private company, and the statement that I was about to make before was that the right hon. Gentleman, when his Government came into office, resigned his directorship of the public company. When the Labour Government came in lie took up his directorship again, and when the present Government came in he again resigned. That was because it was a public company. [Interruption.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer says it was a pity I did not say it. Hon. Gentlemen who, according to these Amendments, are so very careful about the standards of public life, might have permitted me to make my speech in my own way. Whether the present position is governed by law, or by precedent, or by the maxims laid down in 1900 in Debate, or in 1906 by the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, it appears to me that the position to-day is uncertain, unsatisfactory and anomalous. It must be obvious to all that the position requires to be thoroughly examined. It is certainly necessary that it should be clarified, and I would have thought, if there was a Member in this House more anxious than all the rest of us that an immediate inquiry should be held into this position in all its bearings, that that gentleman would have been the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health. During the past week we have been engaged in this House in trying to establish what will be to him a more satisfactory standard of propriety in local
administration. The author of such
legislation should remember that those who live in glass houses should never throw stones.

Lord HUGH CECIL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he intends to impute personal corruption to my right hon. Friend or not?

Mr. HENDERSON: In my speech I said that I had no intention of censuring anyone. [HON. MEMBERS: "You did! "] I have made no such suggestion. [HON. MEMBERS "You did!"] I have made no suggestion of corruption against the right hon. Gentleman, and I leave the facts to speak for themselves.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): It is quite true that there have been Debates of this nature in the past, although it is some time since one has taken place. They are never very satisfactory Debates; they never show this House at its best, and they seldom lead to any definite conclusion. I understood when the question was put by the right hon. Gentleman as to whether we would afford time for a Motion of Censure—not from anything he said, but from his appearance—that a Vote of Censure would be put down, to which it was at once my duty to give an affirmative reply. But we are apparently devoting to-day to debating this Resolution in which he specifically says he makes no suggestion of dishonesty and no censure. There has been a certain amount of insinuation. I will reassure the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that, able as he is as a speaker and skilled as he is as a Parliamentarian, he is a mere child in insinuation to the right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate in 1900.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about law, and he spoke about practice. I do not propose to say much about law, for I am not a learned man, but about practice I would like to say a word or two It is a matter of some 20 years ago that Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman gave the reply in the House of Commons which I quoted a day or two ago, and to which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded. I will read it once more, as it is very short:
The conditions laid down on the formation of the Government was that a director ship held by a Minister must be resigned except in the case of honorary directorships, directorships in connection with philanthropic undertakings, and directorships in private companies.
For good or for ill, that has been the practice, as far as I know, both in that Government and in each successive Government, and it is worth remembering, considering what has been said about my right hon. Friend, that he held office in exactly the same circumstances and the same conditions under the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), Mr. Bonar Law and under myself, and no question arose in the mind of anyone of the three of us that there was anything in that holding that was contrary to what had been laid down by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. It has always been the practice, as far as I know, in all Cabinets with which I have had acquaintance, and I believe in Cabinets before I had the honour of serving, that whenever the question of private interest comes in the Minister affected always makes a declaration to that effect, and sometimes does not take part in the discussion, or, if he does, it is with the full knowledge of all his colleagues. I wish to explain to the House that occasions sometimes arise—I shall have something to say about this, not only in regard to Ministers, but in regard to hon. Members—where there is a conflict between private interest and public duty, but I am convinced that in 99 cases out of 100 in this country public duty wins.
The question really raised in this Motion is, shall this practice of the last 20 years be modified? I think this is an opportunity for the House to consider the conditions in which such modification might take place, and what the consequences of such modification might be, because the question itself, like most questions, is by no means so simple as it appears to be on the surface, as anyone who has occupied my position is fully aware of. In the first place, we will assume anyone being asked to join a Government who has some private property of some kind. It is impossible for him to tell beforehand whether, and, if so, when, any question may arise where his own pecuniary interests will be affected. Is he therefore to sell out everything that he has, or is he to wait, and, when the question arises, act, as it were, ad hoc But, whichever of these courses, he pursues, he is confronted by a fresh series of difficulties. Having sold out the tainted stock, what is the innocent
stock in which he has to put his money, whether it be a large amount or a small amount? Shall he put it into railways? Dangerous things, railways! Supposing, for instance, quite apart from legislation in this House that may affect them, there came a great railway strike, and a Member of the Government was a holder of railway stock? He might then be accused of trying to bring the strike to an end, not to secure the peace of the country but for the benefit of his own pocket.
Is he to put it into a bank? That again raises difficulties. In an industrial company? Any industrial company may have difficulties, too. Land—a most dangerous thing for legislation with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the party opposite at large. There may be conflicting interests at any moment. Is he to put it in Consols? There, again, by supporting a Government which is doing all it can to strengthen the financial stability of the country, he is adding to the price of gilt-edge stocks and thereby putting again from the nation into his pocket. You may have at any time the question of personal interest raised. The question of personal interest would undoubtedly be raised. It would not be raised in the first place by the Front Bench, but it would be raised and probably be supported by them. I have come to the conclusion that the only safe thing to do is to lend your money to the Soviet Government.
Now comes the question, not mentioned to-day, which figured very largely in the Debate of 1900.What about a man's relations and friends? It. is perfectly obvious that a man may very often be influenced by wanting to help his relations and friends more than by what will help himself, and you come back to the question which was put in 1900 or 1906, that, if you really are to fulfil the position of the lady alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the only thing that the Prime Minister can do when asked to form a Government is to advertise " Wanted a foundling, with no relations, and penniless." In considering how we are to protect the honour of Ministers I, as one who spent most of his life on the back benches, am no less anxious to protect the honour of back benchers. Have they no interest of any kind in shares which they may hold? Have
they no directorships? Let me put this point—it is absurd, but it is as good a point as some I have heard put. You get the question of Railway Bills. We have often heard how private interests are cut across in the House. I do not think I have ever heard a case in which private interest has been allowed in the matter of Railway Bills to deflect this House from the honest course.
After all, every Member of this House pays Income Tax. What about him when he votes for a reduction of Income Tax, or the reduction of any tax? He is voting pro (onto and to that extent to increase his own income. There is no getting out of that. I think we should think of ourselves in the House as a whole and our honour too in these matters. We see in this House Members interested in cooperative societies taking a lively interest in the question of taxing co-operative societies. No one has ever insinuated, nor would ever insinuate that in holding the views they do, and giving the votes they do, they are doing anything that is not perfectly honourable because, I for one have always believed, that the wider political question entirely swamps that of personal interest or the interest of one's friends. In an exactly similar way, supposing you had in this House a Bill—and one was brought in once for the alteration of the system of the political levy—which might easily affect the financial status of a great many Members. It never occurred to me to suggest that Members in opposing that Bill were doing it on any other grounds than that they believed it would weaken the movement which they believed to be essential in the interests of the country. But it is just as much open to impute motives in that case, if people care for that kind of thing, as it is in any other case.
There is no subject in which it is more necessary to clear the mind of cant than this subject of pecuniary interest. You may take, as Governments have done, what, on the whole, you believe to be all reasonable precautions, but ultimately you are always faced with the question—whether the case be that of a member of the Government or a private Member—of the interest or otherwise of each individual in question. This matter aroused a great deal of interest in Mr. Bottomley, who took it up in 1906, and put questions to Sir Henry Campbell-
Bannerman upon it; and Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, in spite of his questions, saw no reason to make any alteration in the rule that he had laid down. There is nothing in an inquiry of that nature—in the inquiry itself—to which anyone in this House could take any objection; but, in view of the opening words of the Motion, and in view of the attacks that have been made on my colleagues, I am not going to support at this moment any application of that kind, and, if my right hon. and Noble Friend the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) moves his Amendment, I shall support that Amendment when the time comes.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Last Thursday, probably in preparation for the questions that were to be put in this House, a daily Press organ with a very wide circulation, from which many Members opposite appear to take their political ideas, came out with a flaming placard and broad headline to explain that those questions had been ordered or instigated by Moscow —it was a red-hot plot right from the Zinovieff factory. I can only say that, so far as I am aware, there never has been any contact, direct or indirect, with Moscow or any of its agents so far as these questions are concerned; and, further, I believe that it is part of one's public duty to put these questions, and to put them whether Moscow or any of its agents are pleased or displeased as the result.
We have heard a great deal in the Press, and we have had some references this afternoon, to innuendo. Has innuendo never been used by the party opposite? Do not the party opposite and its chief Press organ habitually slander Members on these benches? Are we not continually told, or is it not suggested by innuendo, that we are the recipients of red gold? Are we not told at election after election by innuendo that we are wife beaters, that we are free lovers, that we are atheists, that we break every one of the Commandments as a matter of course, and as a matter of principle? And when I turn to some of the speeches at the last General Election, I find that, so far as I can ascertain, the one Secretary of State, the one right hon. Gentleman on the Government Bench who went out of his way by innuendo to attack my right hon. Friend
the present Leader of the Opposition personally, was the present Minister of Health. There was never an attack in any form in which it could be met, there was never any formal Motion in this House; but not only the Minister of Health, but many hon. Members opposite, went about the hustings shouting the vulgar word "biscuits." [Interruption.]
The present Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health rose in this House, when the Labour Government was in office, and asked questions designed to secure that Mr. Frank Hodges, who was then Civil Lord of the Admiralty, should be compelled to resign his directorship—an unpaid directorship—in the Victoria House Printing Company; and very promptly the then Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clones), rose and said that he had drawn Mr. Hodges' attention to these questions, and Mr. Hodges had forthwith tendered his resignation. Was there any innuendo there? If the hon. Gentleman was acting purely in the public interest and from a sense of public duty, in putting those questions, then certainly we are equally actuated by a right sense of duty in putting our questions to his superior in the present Ministry. From all of which I draw the aphorism that people who live in glass houses should not shout "Biscuits."
There is a phase of this question that has not been referred to this afternoon. One day last week—on Monday, I think it was—I asked if it were the case that the firm of Hoskins and Sons had failed to register its annual return fox the year 1924; and the answer I received from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade was that the company had not filed a return for 1924, but that there ices no intention to prosecute the company for its failure to register that return, because the company's return for 1925 was in identical terms with the return it had filed for 1923. Indeed, the Parliamentary Secretary said that it would be oppressive were a prosecution to take place in the circumstances. I hold in my hand documents relating to a small company of ex-service men who started a business in Cheshire, and who failed to send in a return for 1924—precisely the same year. Did they get off? What happened was that when they filed their return for 1925 they got a form saying that a similar return made up with
reference to the ordinary general meeting held in 1924 must also be filed, and a document from Somerset House, dated the 22nd June, in black type draws attention to the penalties which they must suffer. Not the firm of Hoskins and Sons, but this poor company of ex-service men, are told—
If the return above referred to be not lodged at this Office within Fourteen days from the date hereof, the default will be reported to the Solicitor to the Board of Trade, who has received instructions from the Board of Trade to institute proceedings in this class of default without further notice of any kind. It must he borne in mind that there is no obligation to give this notice.
Further, the Registrar—Mr. CampbellTaylor—said this
I would point out that the company is liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds for every day during which such default continues, and that every Director and Manager of the Company who shall knowingly and wilfully authorise or permit such default incurs the like penalty.
[An HON. MEMBER: "Were they summoned?"] No; they filed a return. [Interruption.] This small company filed its return; the firm of Hoskins and Sons has not filed its return, and we shall be glad, I am sure, to have the assistance of the hon. Gentleman in the Lobby to ensure that some protest shall be made by Parliament against the non-filing of the return.
My right hon. Friend who initiated this discussion this afternoon has gone over the list of contracts taken by this firm of Hoskins and Sons, and by Elliott's Metal Company since the present Administration took office, and I do not propose to take up the time of the House by repeating them. I would only add this, that to a great deal of what the Prime Minister said nobody can take any objection. It is a difficult matter to put down exactly where one can draw the line. I would even go further than the Prime Minister went, and say that any man who derived interest from a War Savings Certificate, or from £5 worth of War Loan, would to that extent be a beneficiary from the Treasury, and would therefore to that extent have some financial interest in whatever financial transactions took place in this House. But, surely, there is a clear, definite distinction between a private company with two directors, when one of those directors is one of His
Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, and the other class of companies to which the Prime Minister referred. Further, it must surely be obvious that to have a Secretary of State as a director of a company such as Messrs. Hoskins and Sons does confer certain trade advantages upon that firm over its competitors—not necessarily with the Government, but, given two travellers competing for an order outside, with one traveller able to say that the Minister of Health is a director, I do suggest that such a fact carries, advantages to tat firm and to that traveler against their competitor. Again, I do not think it can be denied that there would be some subtle psychological effect upon the minor officials of a Government if it were known to them that one of the directors of a company with whom they were dealing was a member of the Cabinet. As a matter of fact, we have something like that already proved this case of the non-filing of the return for 1924. Messrs. Hoskins and Sons Ltd. get off, but the smaller firms are threatened with the utmost rigour of the law. [An HON. MEMBER: " How do you know the company were not threatened?"] Let me repeat, for the sake of hon. Members who have not been paying particular attention, that the return for Messrs. Hoskins is not yet filed, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade did not put it as his defence in this House that he was endeavouring to get the return, but that the return for 1925, when it did come in, was substantially the same as the return for 1923. Therefore, there was no necessity for prosecuting in respect to 1924.

5.0 P. m.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: Did the other small company file their return in time?

Mr. JOHNSON: Yes, for 1925. They failed in 1924, and they were threatened with prosecution and the utmost rigour of the law if they did riot file their return for 1925. I want to suggest that the development of joint-stock enterprise in this country has made it more than ever necessary that a Select Committee should draw the fine, clearly and definitely, how far a Minister of the Crown may have trading relationships, direct or indirect,
with the Government of which he is a member. Up to now, if a man is interested in a public company, he is barred; but if he holds interests in a private company, he is welcomed. I say it ought to be the other way round. Surely, if an hon. Member holds £5 or £500 of shares in a railway company, such as the Prime Minister referred to, he cannot direct policy, he cannot influence in the way of contracts; but, if a member of His Majesty's Government is also a director in a private company, it is more likely that he is able to influence policy and influence contracts than if he were merely a director in a public company. At any rate, I submit that the case put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson) has so far not at all been met by the Prime Minister. No statement of fact made by my right hon. Friend has been challenged, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, no such statement of fact is challengeable. It will not do, so far as the people of this country are concerned, to fob us off with the difficulties of drawing a fresh line of demarcation and refusing to meet the specific details set forth by my right hon. Friend. Surely, the whole question is a fit and proper subject of inquiry, and it ought to be the duty of this House to make that inquiry without any reference whatsoever to the gibes and jeers about malevolent Muscovy or anything else. We have to perform a common duty here, however unpopular it may be in certain instances, and, when we get a Minister of Health who himself is not afraid to level wholesale charges of corruption against a board of guardians because certain members may have done that which was wrong and which was indefensible, then, like my right hon. Friend who initiated this discussion, I think that the first person who should have demanded a Committee of Inquiry to clarify the whole position ought to have been the Minister of Health himself.

Lord HUGH CECIL: I beg to move to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
this House, while willing on any suitable occasion to review by Select Committee or otherwise the rules and practices which have hitherto guided the action of Ministers in respect of their private interests during their tenure of office, which rules have been
on all occasions strictly observed by His Majesty's present Ministers, declines to enter upon any such task by way of concession to an organised campaign of calumny and insinuation which has no justification in fact.
The subject which has been brought before the House to-day is certainly one of great interest, and, as already shown in the speeches which have been delivered, it is also one of great complexity. I do not at all complain of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson) bringing it to the notice of the House, for it well deserves that notice, nor do I think, as this Amendment says, that it would be at all unwise that there should be a judicially minded Committee of Inquiry for the purpose of clearing the whole subject up and defining, as everyone wishes to define, what are the rules which ought to govern the cases of supposed or possible conflict between private interest and public duty which may arise in respect to Ministers of the Crown or even in respect to Members of the whole House of Commons, for that matter. As the right hon. Gentleman said, there is a great history behind this subject, and he referred to an ancient rule, which is the law of the land, that a Member of this House who is a, member of a private firm which makes a private contract with the Government vacates his seat. But it should be remembered that that law was passed to stop real corruption. At that time, contracts of a fictitious, colourable kind were given to Members of Parliament for the purpose of giving them money as a direct bribe, and the purpose of the law was to stop actual corruption, about which there were very grave grounds for suspicion. It was important that I should ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he meant to imply private and personal corruption or not, not merely as a matter of rhetorical dispute, but because, of course, the Debate must be quite differently conducted in the one case and in the other. If there had been a charge of personal corruption against any Minister, it might be the duty of the Opposition, or indeed of any Member of the House, to bring such a charge, but naturally it must be specific. It must show what the corrupt act was and what was the corrupt inducement. Obviously, if such a charge were made, there must he an inquiry
immediately, and no one would wish it more than the accused Minister himself. But the right hon. Gentleman did not make such a charge. He said he wished to make a general statement of facts, which, he said rather vaguely, he would leave to speak for themselves. I will come back to that aspect of the speech before I sit down.
The Prime Minister has pointed out that, if you are going to deal with cases of conflict between private interest and public duty, there is no end to that kind of thing. He gave a great many instances, and I will add one or two. For example, you might imagine the Cabinet debating the Finance Bill. It might easily be that all sorts of different interests will be affected by the Finance Bill. Among the Ministers who sit round the table there might be one possibly interested in the wine trade, who is against the liquor duties. There might be a total abstainer, who wanted a reduction of the taxes on tea. There might be a person who on his income has to pay Super-tax, who would like the Super-tax reduced. There might be a person enjoying some exemptions given on the Income Tax in respect to marriage or children who wanted to continue these exemptions, while another Minister, more fortunately placed, or it might be less fortunately placed, thought that such exemptions should be abolished.
You could conceive of any number of conflicts between private interest and public duty arising. Since the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley went beyond directors, which was a most remarkable thing to do, to the case of shareholders, let me give him an illustration, and as it is so difficult to make these illustrations inoffensive to everyone, I will take an illustration which affects myself, so that no one can interrupt me by rising and objecting that I am imputing corrupt motives to anyone. What I am to tell the House is actual fact. When I succeeded to certain money which was left to me in 1903, I made a certain investment—happily, only to a small extent—in German Government stock. At that time nothing seemed to be more prudent or more reasonable, and nothing, indeed, would have seemed more patriotic than such an investment, because the two Governments were on excellent terms,
and, so far as we took sides in the controversy of 1903, it was on the German rather than the French side in the diplomatic dispute. There was no sign of war, and everything seemed to be reasonable and prudent in what I had done. At that time, even in the case of war, European Governments were in the habit of retaining their solvency and paying their debts—unhappily a tradition which has passed away. When the War came, it happened in the discussions that arose, in a very heated atmosphere, that I supported the claims of the conscientious objector to consideration, and I became suspect to the most ardent section of those who were maintaining and upholding the policy of the War. I was in fact subject to a great deal of criticism on that head. I used to live in apprehension that my unhappy investment would be disclosed to the public, and I could not conceive anything more unfortunate than the effect which that would have. It would have been said, "We always said he was a pro-German; he has this money invested in German stock. He wants to make a profit out of the transaction. No wonder he is a friend of every enemy of his country." You can press this argument of a conflict of interest a very long way. Supposing I had held office and it had happened to me, when the War broke out, and there could he no question of selling the stock that I had held—not a small sum but a large sum, which made all the difference to me between comfort and comparative poverty—then when Lord Lansdowne made a proposal for an early peace, what could more directly have affected my personal interest, and how embarrassing would have been the situation.
The answer, then, is that you must leave these things to the discretion and the personal judgment of the individual concerned. It is true there are cases so extreme—perhaps that would have been such a case—as to make their tenure of office impossible. But there are cases, which cannot be distinguished from it by formal classification, which are perfectly trivial and in which no one would dream of suggesting there could be any real conflict. You must leave the matter to be determined by the honour of the person concerned. All personal conflicts of interest must be so determined, and if any additional reason is wanted surely
this is really, from the practical point of view, a conclusive reason, that if you cannot trust the honour of Ministers there is another way and an easy way by which they can make quantities of corrupt money and no one be the wiser, and that is the may of secret speculation. It is possible for a Minister of the Crown, through the simple method of one or two intermediaries which cannot possibly be traced, to use his knowledge to make any quantity of corrupt money and no one know anything about it. If you are exposed to such a danger as that, it is foolish to boggle about these small, indirect, inconclusive temptations to the deflection of national policy in deference to some corrupt consideration.
Naturally there is a thing which Members often impute and which is not an unreasonable thing to impute to all Governments, a certain fellowship between people who are similarly interested. The House of Lords, for example, in discussing the Irish land question, was often accused of being an assembly of landowners, though of course a very small proportion of the assembly owned Irish land, which alone was concerned. But there was an imputation of general sympathy between one landowner and another, which was not in itself an unreasonable imputation, and if you have Ministers composed on one side of business men or on the other side of Labour Members, there will be a sort of general sympathy with persons in similar positions. We must be guided by human beings who are subject to normal infirmity. You cannot get away from that general sympathy of people to whatever class or category of life they belong.
I want to make my position precise, not in any party interest, but in the interest of clearing this matter up, because it is necessary to clear it up. I reject the whole case of conflict of interest, because you cannot draw any rational distinction or put it on rational lines. I reject it because a self-interested and dishonourable Minister can easily make money if he chooses. I reject it because —from the public point of view quite as important—the general sympathy of one man for another belonging to his own class cannot be restricted by law, and in fact is just as likely to deflect people from the pure pursuit of patriotism as any more directly corrupt interest. Therefore I set it aside.
But that does not cover the case of direction. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley did not seem to appreciate that the case of direction is quite a different case from the case of a shareholder. A shareholder is one case of a great many of personal interest. A director may be a case of divided allegiance. That is quite a different case. A man of the most scrupulous honour might find himself in a difficulty as a director of a public company if he went from a Cabinet Council in which a certain discussion had taken place to a board of direction, and found that something that related to the very same matter arose, and he had to give an opinion about it. It would not be enough to say, " I must subordinate my private interest to the public interest of the country." He would have to say, "I must betray the interest of my shareholders, because otherwise I shall be betraying the secrets of my colleagues," and that is an unfair position to put a person in, and an undesirable position ever to hold. It is not desirable that a person should have two perfectly honourable motives in conflict: not as when an honourable motive is in conflict with a dishonourable motive, as in the case of a conflict of private interest and public duty: but to put a person in the position that he may have to do wrong to one set of people or another is an unfair thing. Obviously the personal honour of the individual concerned is no protection. He has to betray either the shareholders, who trust him, or the public, whose servant he is as a Minister of the Crown. That is the real reason, and the only reason I know of, why Ministers should not be directors of public companies; and if my right hon. Friend had not explained that his direction was a perfectly nominal one, and that he never took part in the actual direction of the company, I should have thought that would be fair ground for asking him to resign his directorship. If he has no share in the direction, such a conflict cannot arise.

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I stated that there are only two directors of the company.

Lord H. CECIL: My right hon. Friend stated in his personal explanation the other day that he did not know anything about the business of the company, and
did not know what contracts had or had not been entered into. There is no dispute, I gather, that that is perfectly protected by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's exception. He is a director of a private company. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman said nothing about that

Mr. HENDERSON: That was the point of my argument.

Lord H. CECIL: It was not the point of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's statement. The right hon. Gentleman's argument was of quite a different kind. It was the same as the shareholding point, and I am sure that is unworkable. If you really suspect the Minister of Health of being deflected from his public duty by personal interest, you must erect a new system of rules altogether, and rules which would practically exclude from public life almost everyone. It would break down the machine of public life almost entirely if you tried to distinguish people and exclude all those whose private interests conflict with their public duty. The case of direction was not put forward by the right hon. Gentleman as a genuine ease of direction against my right hon. Friend, but as a matter of private interest. I say, therefore, that the present principle is perfectly plain.
Where a man may be brought under the conflict of two honourable motives, he ought to resign his directorship. Where he may be required to do something, because of his duty to the company, which is different from what he ought to do as a. Minister of the Crown, he ought to resign. Any other case ought to be left to the judgment of his own personal honour because we cannot, practically speaking, appeal behind that tribunal. You must rely upon his personal honour, or chaos comes, and you drive out of public life many very useful people. That is a real danger. It is anything but desirable in a democratic country that you should drive out of public life the solid leaders of commerce and industry, who have great experience in business matters, and whose services are therefore very valuable as Ministers of the Crown. If you make their lives harder, if you are going to search and find out how many shares they have in this and that, and trace out indirect connections between those shares and the policy the Government may be pursuing at the moment, you will make the posi-
tion intolerable to sensitive people, and in the end the public will suffer because it will lose men of real ability to conduct its affairs.
My Amendment does not deny at all that there might, and should be at some convenient time, an inquiry into the whole subject. I have tried to make it perfectly plain that, as I conceive it, there is now a clear distinction and a clear rule and a rule that does not imply that Ministers are not to have private interests which may conflict with their public duty. That is to be left to their own personal honour. Nevertheless an inquiry would certainly not he amiss, if only for clearing up suspicion. It is one of the evils of these discussions that they tend to promote suspicion in all sorts of minds, and already there have been a crop of suspicions. Some people think that this organised attack, for such it certainly is, is promoted from abroad. That it is organised I do not think admits of any doubt, because a quite impartial person like Dr. Shadwell wrote to the "Times" on Wednesday to point out that the. Prime Minister had been violently attacked in the last few weeks. [An HON. MEMBER: `So have the miners."] Certainly, with, I think, more provocation on their side.
The organised attack has been shown by the repeated attacks on the Prime Minister and by the character of the attack on the Minister of Health. Even in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley there were evidences of industry, shall we say? He knew all the details. He had quite a catalogue, which must have taken some time to prepare. Industry is a beautiful virtue, but it is seldom less amiably displayed than in making attacks of this kind. There are, I believe, persons whose business it is to furnish information to people who engage in litigation, such as prosecutions, questions of corruption or questions of divorce, who are called "private detectives." They are industrious persons, and therefore, if in no other respect, they resemble those who are behind this Motion. They actively engage in all sorts of researches. They go to Somerset House, I dare say, quite as often as the right hon. Gentleman and his friends. They go because they are employed to go in the course of litigation.
No doubt it is often a useful public service, but at the same time, oddly enough, they do not stand very high in public esteem.
I am not going to say anything about Russia. [An HON. MEMBER: "Tell us about the Red Letter"] I am waiting for the hon. Member to tell me. I know nothing about the relations with the Communists or the extreme Socialists of Russia, but I gather that some Members of the Labour party believe such relations exist. I may be permitted to say that no less competent advisers as to the tactics of English party politics than Russians could be imagined, because the Russians are a very inexperienced, and we can honestly say a very foolish people in tactics, while the English are the most intelligent people in the world and may very easily see through Russian tactics. Therefore, if there be anyone—I am far from saying there is, because I do not know—who is guided by Russian advice in these matters, I think he is an injudicious person. My theory of the Motion is rather a different one.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Does the noble Lord definitely say that there is any Russian influence?

Lord H. CECIL: No; I do not say anything about it. As to innuendo I only want to make the same sort of innuendo as your own leaders would make. My theory is rather different. I read a very interesting note in the current number of the "New Leader," which filled me with interest. I will not read the whole of it unless it be wished. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it all!"] Very well:
Naturally, the House has been excited and the Labour benches demonstrative throughout the discussion of this Bill. Inevitably, Mr. Baldwin, as the wavering apostle of peace in industry, was the subject of a concentrated attack, but the use of language, whether in the Press or in the House or on the platform, which describes him as a 'liar,' a. hypocrite,' or a murderer,' is to defeat our own purpose—
That is, perhaps, not the most elevated reason. Nevertheless, it is, no doubt, a perfectly sincere one—
We all know that Mr. Baldwin is a weak but well-meaning, man, surrounded by much stronger and more sinister forces. Mr. David Kirkwood protests in an article which we print elsewhere, against the action of Mr. MacDonald in disavowing and rebuking these scenes.
Here is the part which I had intended to read:
The real moral, to our thinking on this and some other occasions, is that the violence of our back-benchers is directly caused by the weakness of our front-bench. When it fails to argue militant Socialist policy in plain, if Parliamentary, language"—
such as we have listened to from the right hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Henderson) to-day—
and when it seems to adapt its tone to its Tory audience, then the irritation and disappointment of the rank and file will inevitably reveal itself in angry demonstrations.
That gives an interesting glimpse of the inner life of the Labour party, a life full, as it seems to me, of warmth and colour. It is not an unfamiliar picture of a party. One has, first of all, the dissatisfied front-bencher, who says, "Rowdyism does us no good in the country." The rejoinder of the dissatisfied back-bench man is, "It is all very well to complain, but what use is the Front Bench anyway They suit their tone to the Tory audience." Then the mediator—there always is a mediator—comes along, and he says, "Well, perhaps disorder is undesirable, but cannot the Front Bench adopt a more militant line?" Then there is this Motion. This is the beginning of "the plain and Parliamentary language" which is to take the place of disorder. From our point of view, we have nothing to complain of in the change. I confess that if I wanted to call the Prime Minister a hypocrite and a murderer, I should find the language of the Motion a little an#æmic, but as that is not my point of view I make no complaint.
I think the front-bencher is not unlike a particular schoolboy, whom I think we can all recall in our school days, who, essentially law-abiding, and abstaining from all serious offences against school discipline, is not quite happy in being regarded as a milk-sop by his friends, and therefore indulges in a few mild expletives in conversation. The right hon. Member for Burnley seems to me like an innocent child saying "damn" for the first time. Far be it from me to add to the difficulties of the Front Bench in such a situation. But I must say that in matters of propaganda, if one wrote a manual on the subject, one would have to devote a
chapter to the essential difference between veracity and verisimilitude. The judicious propagandist, if he is an unscrupulous person, will say a great many things that are untrue, but he will not say anything that is totally lacking in verisimilitude. The attacks on the Prime Minister seem to fail, according to standards of wise propaganda, in verisimilitude. Does anyone really believe that the Prime Minister is a corrupt person, putting forward a coal policy in order to add to his profit? Why say so, if no one believes it? It is a waste of breath, which might be preserved for more profitable mendacity. Therefore, I should deprecate ignoring the principle that, when you are conducting a campaign against the Government, you should always say what a reasonable person may believe or, at any rate, a person whose vote is doubtful at the General Election. That is the thing that the propagandist has to think about. That rule of propaganda, strictly observed, would, I believe, have excluded almost all that has been said in support of, I do not say this Motion merely, but of the much more extreme accusations which have been made inside and outside this House.
In our Amendment we reject the whole of that campaign of calumny and insinuation. I do not gather that right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench uphold that campaign. It is true that the right hon. Member for Burnley said something about not throwing stones when you live in a glass house. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) said a good deal of the same kind. Let us clear our minds upon the point. Either this is mud slinging or it is not. If it is mud slinging, it is no defence to say that other people have slung mud at another time, much of the same kind. [Interruption.] If, on the other hand, it was not mud, what becomes of the Minister who was then assailed. If it was mud slinging to talk about biscuits—[Interruption.]. If hon. Members really think that there is anything in these charges they ought to say so. If they think there is nothing in them, they ought not to talk about glass houses, because that implies that there is something in them. That is the objection to bringing forward Motions of this kind, except on very peremptory occasions, because they inevitably lead to the more respectable
Members of the Opposition lending themselves, perhaps unconsciously, to the tactics of the less respectable Members, and there comes a sort of tendency to enable other people to say something which you disapprove of their saying. I do not think that is a legitimate or desirable thing in public life, although I should be far from saying that all parties do not yield to the temptation from time to time. I am far from maintaining that the Conservative party consists entirely of haloed saints, who never do anything wrong.
The sound principle is that if you are going to deal with these matters at all, you should deal with them only when you have an unanswerable case, and then you should say what you mean, neither more nor less, otherwise it is much better not to bring these matters before Parliament at all. The effect is not to raise the reputation of public life; it tends to make for that atmosphere of suspicion which everybody agrees—I am sure that right hon. Members on the Front Opposition Bench must agree—is mischievous and discreditable. Our real purpose should be to get public issues discussed on public grounds. What could be more absurd than to attack the Prime Minister for putting forward a coal policy from interested motives, when it is clear from the nature of the charge that he could only profit personally if his policy were completely successful, while at the same time the Opposition are maintaining that it cannot possibly be successful? What could be more absurd than a general accusation against a person of making a profit in his own business, or in the business in which he is supposed to be interested, when that profit will be shared by the whole community? Obviously, he ought never to have taken office at all. If he is to be stopped from doing what is profitable to himself and also profitable to the whole community, he could never do what is profitable, in his judgment, to the whole community. In that case, his business as Prime Minister from the beginning would he a mistake. That is an illustration of the absurdity which you get when you make these accusations.

Mr. WALLHEAD: The Minister of Health is under discussion.

Lord H. CECIL: I am discussing the Opposition's campaign, and if the hon.
Member reads the Amendment he will see why I am making these remarks. In the end, I think it will be found that the Labour party have done more harm than good to themselves by this move, for move it is in a party game. Those who teach others to sneer while not sneering themselves are, according to the poet, not objects for esteem. I believe it will be found when the last result is achieved that the Labour party will have done little but add to the venom which already surrounds the name of Party, and add dishonour to the honoured name of Labour.

Mr. THURTLE: It is a very curious fact that the two speakers we have heard from the Conservative party have talked about everything else under the sun except the very formidable case against the Minister of Health. The Noble Lord entertained us to a very lively account of the anxieties he went through during the War, because of the fact that he had a certain holding of German bonds and he thought that he might be charged with some kind of corruption. It does seem strange to me, in the light of history, that a member of the house of Cecil should be at all concerned about a charge of corruption. I remember hearing, some time ago, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) referring to the house of Cecil. He said—I think he particularly referred to the Noble Lord—that the Noble Lord's hands were dripping with the fat of privilege. [An HON. MEMBER: "Sacreligioue fat!"] It was fat obtained in some mysterious fashion. It is not at all curious that the Noble Lord, when he sees a Motion directed towards making public life more pure and making it more difficult for Members of the Government to obtain certain perquisites, should have to rush to the rescue of the Minister assailed.
The Prime Minister sought to ridicule the Motion on the Paper by suggesting that it is impossible for a member of the Government to put his investments into any form which will render him immune from suspicion, and he instanced railways, land, and other things. The logic of that is this, that if it is impossible to take any satisfactory precautions at all we might as well have no precautions whatever; we might allow Cabinet Ministers to be directors of public and private companies, participating fully and
freely in every Government contract which may be going. The Prime Minister also said, and I cannot think the House will take it seriously, that in any question as between private interests and public duty you could invariably count upon Members and Ministers coming down on the side of public duty. He suggested to the House that corruption is practically unknown here. If we like to turn our minds back to comparatively recent times, to the history of electricity companies and the legislation in connection with them, to the beet-sugar industry, and to many other instances where this House has been concerned in passing legislation which would be beneficial to private indiviluals, it is clear to any honest Member that private interests do enter, and quite largely, into the consideration of public policy.
I want to discuss the question of the Hoskins Company with perfect frankness. It is common ground, I think, that we want to see His Majesty's Government free, not only from corruption, but also from the suspicion of corruption, which is rather a different thing. A Minister ought so to order himself in his public and private affairs as to be free, not only from corruption, but from the very spirit of it In the interests of public purity, I propose to discuss this question of the Hoskins Company with a certain amount of frankness. I am not going to indulge in any allegation or charge which does not seem to me to be reasonably based on the facts of the case. The right hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson) said, quite fairly, that we were not indulging iii a campaign of calumny. We are letting the facts speak for themselves, and we are quite content that the facts should speak for themselves. In our view they tell a very eloquent and significant story. There is no need for any Member of the Government or any member of the Conservative party to lash himself into a fury while these facts are discussed. What are the facts in regard to Hoskins and Sons? It is a private company, owned to all intents and purposes by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health and his brother, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. They have by far and away the great bulk of the ordinary shareholding. It is true there are some other shareholders, but their holding is really quite nominal
This private company, which is owned by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health and the Foreign Secretary, has been taking public contracts, and has been deriving from these public contracts profits which have gone into the pockets of the two right hon. Gentlemen to whom I have referred. We have, therefore, without any suspicion, or innuendo, or calumny, these plain facts, and I say that there is a prima facie case for investigation.
On the question of the directorship of the Minister of Health, I am prepared to admit that he has a defence, but it is a purely technical defence—technical and nothing else. If he is content with that, well and good. It has been laid down in the past that a director of a private company need not resign when he becomes a member of the Government, and, therefore, if the Minister of Health is content with a defence like that, he is entitled to make the best use he can of it. But I want to point out that this only serves to show how illogical and anomalous the present rule is in regard to private companies and public companies. A distinction is made between private companies and public companies, and I hope it will be explained some time during the course of the Debate the grounds upon which that distinction is made, why a member of the Government is called upon to resign a directorship in a public company while he is allowed to continue a directorship in a private company. I do not profess to be an expert in Company Law or in regard to the possibility of corruption, but to the Uninstructed lay mind there seems to be a much stronger ease for compelling resignation from a private company directorship than there is for compelling resignation from a public directorship. I will explain why. Normally, a director of a public company has not anything like a controlling interest in the shares of the company. He has often a large holding, but except in very exceptional cases it is nothing like a controlling interest, whereas in the case of a private company, the very reverse is the case.
In almost all eases directors in private companies have a controlling interest in the shares of that company. If you are going to lay it down on the ground e f public purity and to prevent any possibility of corruption or suspicion of cor-
ruption that a public directorship is to be resigned, surely, there is infinitely more reason for asking that private directorships should be relinquished. If there is a clash of interests as between private interests and public duty, the clash is much more likely to be marked in the case of private companies than in the ease of public companies. It has been said that if this rule be insisted upon it will involve hardship upon particular individuals. It may be that the individual who wants to become a member of the Government might be caved upon to relinquish directorships with which he has been associated for a long time. Even so. I say that individuals have to make their choice between serving the country in a representative capacity as members of the Government and their interests as directors of private companies. If you are going to weigh in the balance the private interests of an individual as against the public interest, certainly, public interest should come first every time.
I want to draw attention specifically to the position of the Minister of Health himself. He has got what I may call a technical defence, but if he has kept to the written law or the unwritten conventions of the country, I submit, and this is really our charge against him, that he has violated not the letter of the law but that he has most seriously violated the spirit of the law. Let me explain what I mean. There is a law on the Statute Book of this country making it an offence., involving resignation of the seat, and heavy penalties by way of fines, if a private Member of this House gets a contract with the Government. It was passed a long time ago, but it was passed in order to secure the freedom and independence of Parliament and presumably with the idea of raising the standard of public purity. Under that law a Member would vacate his seat and may he fined heavily if he indulges in a contract with the Government. What is the position of the Minister of Health in relation to that particular law? In reality, if not in form, the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs have been contracting with the Government. They own practically the whole of the ordinary shares of this company, and in fact, if not in
legal form, what it amounts to is this, that you have a partnership consisting of Chamberlain Brothers—nominally it is Hoskins and Sons—and any profits which are made by this partnership go, in the main, into the pockets of these two main shareholders. If any profits are derived from public contracts they get the benefit of those profits, and, therefore, in substance, if not in legal form, you have these two right hon. Gentlemen indulging in the very offence of entering into contractual relations with the Government which, according to the law of 1782, involves the vacation of the seat and also heavy penalties by way of fines.
The defence is made that this is a private company. According to my researches private companies, as they are now known, were not in existence in 1782 when this law was enacted. They have sprung up since, and they are given a definite form under the Companies Act, 1907. It is quite likely that when the Act of 1782 was framed to prevent corruption this particular point was overlooked.
Here is one fact which I think is significant. Again, I make no charge and indulge in no innuendo, but let the facts speak for themselves. This is a private company. A private company may consist of two or more members. It need not consist of 10 members. It may consist of five or of two members. This particular company consists of over 10 members. I believe that is rather an unusual number in private companies. It consists of 12 members. The curious fact is that in order to get those 12 members there are five members of the company with perfectly nominal holdings—five clerks, I think, who hold one preference share each. I submit to the House generally that that is really the quintessence of a nominal holding—one preference share— but by means of these five additional members the company has a membership of over 10. I may be asked why I am spending time in developing this particular point, and what significance it has in relation to the point under discussion. I will explain to the. House what the significance is. Under this law of 1782, to which reference has been made, even if the right hon. Gentleman were trading as a public company, if that company had a membership of less than 10 members
he would be amenable to the law, but as it has a membership of over 10 he is not, amenable to the law, and really if I were a prosecuting counsel in a Court of Law, I think I should be entitled to emphasise this fact as one of some significance.
6.0 P.M.
The charge which we are making against the right hon. Gentleman is not a charge of corruption. We cannot say definitely—it would be wrong for us to say, because we have no proof—that the right hon. Gentleman is guilty of corruption, but we can say, and say with perfect fairness that he has acted in such a way as to expose himself to a suspicion of corruption. I submit that a Member of the Government ought not to indulge in any act which is likely to expose him or his Government even to a suspicion of corruption in connection with public affairs. Therefore, we are perfectly entitled to press this Motion to a Division, and indeed, to ask the House to accept it, because, apart from the reference to the right hon. Gentleman—I have endeavoured to give the ground which justifies us in making that reference—there is long overdue a full inquiry into the facts governing the conditions under which Members of the Government can indulge in contracts with the Government. There is also long overdue an inquiry as to how far Members of the Government who have large shareholdings in private companies, the bulk of whose business is done with the Governmcnt—as to whether that is right and proper according to a decent conception of public propriety.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken stated that he was making no charges of corruption and indulging in no innuendoes, but it struck me during the whole time that I listened to him that from first to last the hon. Gentleman wished the House to understand that the brothers Chamberlain were combining together in their official capacity as Members of the Government in order to secure contracts for their firm. I am not going to deal with that case; I will leave it to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health himself. But I must say that certainly did not get the impression from his speech that he was not making charges of corruption. I rise to support the Amendment which was moved by my
Noble Friend the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) with such force and with the ability which we always expect from him. I hope that the same publicity may be given to that speech as was given to the misleading statements regarding the Minister of Health and the Prime Minister which have appeared in certain parts of the Socialist press.
I want to point out the absolute futility of the Committee which has been asked for. The only way by which this country can be assured of a Government which is free from corruption is by trusting the personal character and by knowing the personal character of Ministers of the Crown. It is impossible to lay down a hard and fast rule as to what a member of the Government should have or should not have in the way of investments. The Prime Minister said that you would have to advertise for a foundling. If you had men who were not engaged in business you would probably have those who had failed in business, or second-class lawyers, and cannot think that a Government composed of all the duds would he conducive to the national well-being. If a Minister with a knowledge of, say, foreign affairs, or possible industrial troubles, used that information in order that his friends or relatives, by purchases or sales on the Stock Exchange, might make a profit, no Select Committee could possibly clear up such a case.
I want to examine the position as it might be if the party opposite formed a Government. I would like for a moment to discuss what the composition of that Government would probably be. You would have the leaders of trade unions; you would have some of the intelligentsia of the Labour party; and you would have possibly one or two men who belonged to the Socialist party, the kind of men who go to their constituencies in a Rolls Royce or a Hispanio-Suiza and complete the latter part of the journey in a tramcar, while their wives cover up their pearls with red jumpers. Then you might have professors of economies who never had an opportunity of putting their theories into practice. That is what would probably he the future Labour Government.
Are not Members of this House who are members of a trade union really delegates from that trade union and not free Members at all? There are Members who throughout their lives have been connected with mining. There are over 40 paid officials of the miners' trade union in this House. If they got a job in the next Government would not they be obliged, whether they wished it or not, to obey the orders of their union? If they showed independence, when the Ministry came to end they would have to go back to their union, and if they were still in disagreement with the Miners' Federation they would have either to work at the coal face or go to the guardians. There would be no alternative. They must remain delegates of the Miners' Federation even while members of the Government. There is not the slightest doubt that members of the Miners' Federation who were Members of the House would have a direct interest in such a question as nationalisation. No Committee which could be set up could possibly deal with cases like that.
Take another aspect of the case. Take the position of a man like Mr. Cook or Mr. Herbert Smith, not members of the Government. One of them comes clown and makes a speech in some part of the country. That speech might have an immediate effect on the iron and steel industry of the country, and people might make money on the Stock Exchange. Then take the case of the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) and the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Bromley). If they were crooks and went 'down to their constituents and said, "There is trouble in the railway unions. We cannot stand this imposition of the companies," the effect of such a speech would be to lower the value of the ordinary shares of the railway by several points. It is perfectly obvious that by that means, also, there might be corruption. But no Select Committee that you could set up would deal with such cases.
We recollect what has happened to Members of this House. There are the hon. Members for Mansfield (Mr. Varley) and Broxstowe (Mr. Spencer). Both of them have shown some independence in the miners' dispute. They were whistled to heel by Mr. Cook and Mr. Smith.
They had to go back. If they had not gone back they would have lost their jobs. The case of Mr. Hodges is in the newspapers to-day. He has shown independence. I do not say whether he is right or wrong, but I do state that no one knows more about the miners than Mr. Hodges. We saw this morning that Mr. Cook had said "Hodges must go," and, presumably, Hodges will go. You cannot have hard-and-fast rules dealing with cases such as those. If a man is a crook he will we a crook, whether a Minister of the Crown or anything else. If a Committee were appointed there is another danger which is patent to some of us. It is quite possible that a man, a prominent politician, might by some means or other secure a huge political fund, and he might be able to make or mar the political prospects of scores of young men in the country. He might say, "If you do not toe the line I shall not give you any money." That, also, is a case where you cannot lay down a hard-and-fast rule, because in a man does not wish to run straight no rule on earth can possibly make him run straight.
I object to the terms of the Motion. On the whole, it has been debated quietly and with dignity. There have not been the interruptions to which we have been accustomed. I have been a Member of this House for more than 15 years, and I have seen stormy times here. We expect them. But I do not think I have ever seen a more steadily organised system of interruptions than that which we have seen in the past few months. In the Press and in speeches in the country there have been innuendoes against those, such as the Prime Minister, whom we most respect in political life. When such an attempt is made to drag them into the dirt it makes the blood of Members on this side of the House boil. I think there has been extraordinary forbearance on the part of members of our party in the way we have stood this constant interruption which has amounted at times almost to unbridled licence. I must say I bitterly resent it myself, because I think that, as far as the Prime Minister is concerned. nobody could have acted in a more patriotic way, and nobody could have made less profit out of his opportunities as a business man, and I deeply resent the imputation which has been cast upon the right hon. Gentleman. I do not think
this is the moment to have a Committee of this description. I am certain it would not do any good. It could not legislate for all the eases which may arise. It is only by choosing your public men from those whom you trust, from those about whom no breath of suspicion has ever been aroused, that you can secure pure government in this country.

Mr. LANSBURY: I should not have intervened in this Debate were it not for the fact that I happen to have written and said a good many things on this subject outside the House, and I should nor like to say outside the House what I would not be prepared to say inside the House. Before I deal with the subject generally, I desire to congratulate the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) on once more being able, by the use of that skill which everyone knows him to possess, to confuse the issue most thoroughly. Of all the men in this House, the Noble Lord is the last who, at this time of day, ought to stand up in defence of law and order in the House. On occasions when it has suited him and his noble relative, they have been among the most disorderly persons this House has ever had within its precincts. I am astounded at the agility with which he has been able this afternoon to turn his mind and to give those who sit on this side a sort of sanctimonious lecture as to our good behaviour, or want of it. Knowing as I do, from my own experience, how the Noble Lord has acted when he has been in a rage defending vested interests and knowing the lengths to which he can go when it suits him, I am astonished that even he has had the audacity to lecture us as he has done. I think also of other Noble Lords and especially of that Noble Lord who sat below the Gangway there, and who, on one memorable occasion, charged the Prime Minister of the day, whom everyone in the country respected, by telling him "to go back to his bottle—to go back to his drink."

Lord H. CECIL: indicated dissent.

Mr. LANSBURY: No, the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University did not do it, but another Noble Lord did, who sat within two seats of where the Noble Lord is sitting now. It is quite too late in the day for Noble Lords and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side who heaved books at one
another and shouted down Mr. Asquith time and time again during the Home Rule discussions—

Mr. HANNON: On a point of Order. Is this relevant to the Motion?

Mr. J JONES: It is history.

Mr. HANNON: I submit that the hon. Member is putting up a line of argument which has no relation to the subject under discussion.

Mr. SPEAKER: I gather that the hon. Member is replying to something which was said previously.

Mr. HANNON: The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) made no reference to the point with which the hon. Member is dealing.

Mr. JONES: Yes, he did.

Mr. SPEAKER: I did not hear it, but I gather that the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) is replying to a previous statement.

Mr. LANSBURY: The Noble Lord was at great pains to give to my hon. Friends and myself a lecture as to how we ought to behave ourselves in Parliament, and I think I am entitled to retort, that, in my recollection of his own conduct, he has been on occasion one of the most disorderly Members of this House.

Mr. JONES: He belongs to the right crowd for it, too.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that occasions of this sort are taken up with tu quoques which lead nowhere.

Mr. LANSBURY: As a matter of fact. I am not anxious to pursue that line of argument except to recall to the House that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, some of whom now sit on the Front Bench opposite, some of whom are now in another place and some of whom still sit below the Gangway, when they have been moved by passions which they considered legitimate and right have not only interrupted the proceedings of this House, but have definitely held up the business of this House in order to show their indignation and their contempt for the Ministry of the day. Because I feel like that, I resent very much the kind of lecture we have had from the Noble Lord this afternoon. He gave us that lecture
because neither he nor anybody else, so far, has attempted to defend the position which we are attacking. Nobody has said that the position in which the Minister of Health finds himself is either legitimate or right. I am waiting to hear somebody do so

Major OLIVER STANLEY: Does the hon. Gentleman make the accusation that the Minister of Health has acted in a manner which is illegitimate and wrong?

Mr. LANSBURY: If the hon. Member allows me to finish my speech, he will know exactly what I say. I do not think anyone can charge me, at any rate, with not trying to make people understand what I say, and I will try to do so on this occasion. I was pointing out that up to the present no one has controverted the facts of this case. Again I turn to the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University. He apparently thinks that when a set of circumstances arise which do not appear to be quite right, those who ask for an investigation of those circumstances are guilty of unworthy motives. I do not charge the Noble Lord with it, but, if my memory serves me aright, I think it was someone belonging to his house who pursued the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) in connection with the Marconi business, in a very much more virulent manner than any of us have adopted to pursue the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Therefore, it does not lie with the Noble Lord to give us a curtain lecture on that subject either. It is a case of "physician heal thyself" when he attempts to charge us. We had a perfect right, when it was brought to our notice that the right hon. Gentleman was interested in two companies which were in contractual relation with the Government to call for an investigation of that matter. I am certain if it had been brought to the right hon. Gentleman's notice that I, or any of my colleagues on the Poplar Board of Guardians, had an interest in buying property from or selling goods to the board of guardians, he would have done his duty by appointing an official to investigate the matter. I could not complain about it. It would be his duty to do so, as it was our duty to do this, and I am certain, had the boot been on the other foot, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen
opposite would have been quite willing to investigate such a charge as this, if made against the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) when he was at the Ministry of Health. No amount of argument can get over those facts. I would like the Attorney-General who may, one of these days, like his predecessors, have to prosecute some unhappy member of a local authority for being in a position similar to the position of the right hon. Gentleman to-day, to answer the question: Are we to have one standard of business morals for Members of this House and of the Government and another for members of local authorities? If not, I claim that we were entitled to take up the attitude which we have taken up in regard to the right hon. Gentleman's holding of these shares.
I turn to the broader issue. More and more in this House there will come up for discussion questions connected with the transference of big businesses from private concerns to the State, and men and women will be called upon to decide purchase prices, and so forth. We have had cases of that character. Anyone who does not care to take any notice of what I say, may, if he chooses, read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings of the Standing Committee which is dealing with the Electricity Bill upstairs, and anyone who does so cannot get away from the fact that hon. and right hon. Gentleman in that Committee quite openly say that they are speaking on behalf of certain private interests or certain bodies. As the days go past, and as industry comes more and more under the control of Parliament, the man who has vested interests, that is, the man who owns shares and who is acting as a director, cannot play a kind of Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde part—one moment full of concern for the public service and the next taking care of his own private interests. I think the time has come when a Committee such as that for which we are asking ought to be set up.
The Noble Lord made great play about the use of the epithet "murderer," which he said has been flung across the Floor at the Prime Minister. I want to say--and I say this with a full sense of what I am saying—that I believe the miners, when they claim that the eight hours working day means more accidents and
more deaths in the mines. I think they are quite right in calling that Bill a "Murder Bill" and I also hold—and this is a view I hold very strongly indeed—that the right hon. Gentleman's Bill, which got through this House last Friday, is a Bill which will safeguard that murder and will force the men back. The Noble Lord said we had two arguments about the Mines Bill, one that it would not work and the other that the Prime Minister and others were voting for it in order to get themselves money. I do not think any of us have ever said that it was impossible to drive the men back to work by starvation. I think it possible that such a thing may happen. I have never taken the view that if you starve women and children by tens of thousands, the men can stand by and see them starve for ever, and the right hon. Gentleman has taken power, in the Bill passed last week, which will enable this starvation to come about. That is why I call it a "safeguarding of murder Bill."
I, therefore, maintain that the Government which is responsible for passing that Bill into law are, in effect, responsible for the slow murder of the men in the pits and for the increased accidents which will follow that Bill. When I am told that I am to respect the motives of the Prime Minister and the motives of other people who have huge interests in coal, all I can say is, that, as I understand that Bill, it is a Bill for the express purpose, at least in the minds of the promoters—and this is what the Noble Lord has to keep in his mind—of making those companies that at present do not do so pay their way. I am entitled to say, what I have said outside, and only for myself, that those who originated and passed that Bill into law have passed a Bill which will, in their judgment, enable money to come into their own pockets. I think that at least men who were intensely interested in the mining industry might have stood on one side and allowed other people to bring in the Bill. I do not think the working people of this country will ever forgive the Government and the Prime Minister for having brought in that Bill, knowing, as they do know, the enormous amount of benefit that will come to the people who own coal-mining shares and iron foundry shares and so on. It is not really that this will benefit the coal industry; it will benefit every industry that is
dependent on the coal industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Then hon. Members opposite give me my case entirely. They hope that by the passing of that Bill their dividends and rents and so on will be increased. Hon. and right hon. Members—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) began by saying he was replying to something said by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil). He is now going on to discuss a Bill which left this House some days ago.

Mr. LANSBURY: With very great respect, the Noble Lord chaffed us with having said that that was a murder Bill, and that we charged the Prime Minister and other Ministers with having passed it in order to put money into their own pockets, and I am replying to that charge.

Mr. SPEAKER: I allowed the hon. Member to reply, but I think he is going on to a general discussion of that point.

Mr. LANSBURY: I had to do that in order to make my argument. The whole point is that, if money is going to flow in the way of dividends and profits because of that Bill, we were entitled to make our criticism of the Prime Minister and others interested in the coal industry. I am quite certain of this, that without raising the argument of "You are another," any of us in a similar position would not have had one minute's mercy—I should not expect it and should not want it—from hon. and right hon. Members opposite. I believe the miners of this country are going to be treated in the most abominable manner in order that rents, royalties, profits, and dividends may be made.

Mr. HANNON: On a point of Order.

Mr. LANSBURY: I charge those who passed the Bill with having passed it and with having risked the murder and maiming and bruising of miners in order to feather their own nests.

Sir JOHN SIMON: I desire to bring the House back to what seems to me to he the immediate matter involved. I very much regret, I very deeply regret, that the question which this Motion brings before the House should be complicated
by personal references or should have its origin in anything that has been done or that is said to have been done by any individual occupant of the Treasury Bench. It is quite inevitable, if those are the circumstances in which a Motion of this sort is put down, that you should get, and very properly get, on the side of the House where the Minister sits a body of people. who are determined at all costs to defend him against any suggested imputation—every Englishman can only respect that feeling, and I share it to the full—and, on the other hand, you are quite certain to get speakers who, while repudiating any suggestion of corruption, at the same time make a great many rather personal references. I think it a profound pity, because the truth is that the question that is involved in this Resolution is a very important question, and—I say it in the presence of the Attorney-General, who may be going to speak—I do not think it is covered by any ruling of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman or anybody else. The Prime Minister obviously thought it was, because, when he was challenged about it, he referred to the Campbell-Bannerman ruling, and I have no doubt many hon. Members think so quite honestly.
I do not profess to be informed of every ruling that has ever been given, but, as far as I can see, the question, if we are prepared to face it in general terms, and apart altogether from the case of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, is not only obviously an important question, but it is a new question. We have to distinguish between two things, which have got nothing in the world to do with one another, but which in this particular Resolution are brought before the House in combination. One question is: In what circumstances ought a Minister of the Crown to retain a directorship of a company, whether public or private? About that, no doubt, rulings have been given from time to time, and I am not aware of anything, if I may be allowed to say so, in the behaviour of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health which in the least transcends that rule—not in the least. But there is a second and quite distinct, question, which was no part of the Campbell-Bannerman ruling at all, and which arises in a perfectly different connection, and that is this:
Should a Cabinet Minister continue to be the director of a company, whether public or private, which has contracts with the Government? That is a perfectly different question, and Sir Henry Camp-bell-Bannerman, as far as I know, never laid down any ruling in favour of that at all.
The point put to the former Prime Minister was this, if I may put it in very colloquial language: Should a Cabinet Minister be a guinea pig? Should a man who was getting a substantial salary as a Minister of the Crown add to that salary by serving as a director of a company? It was before the days when I was a Member of this House, but I remember as a young man reading the debates, and I remember the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord St. Aldwyn, or Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, making a speech ,in which he said, referring, no doubt, to Mr. Balfour, as he then was: " Some of my colleagues take their relaxation in playing golf. I take my relaxation in walking down the Embankment and taking part in a board meeting of a company." That was the question which was raised and ruled upon by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, and he took this view. He said, in general: It is desirable that people who are Ministers should get rid of their other business occupations, and devote the whole of their time to their Ministerial duties. I think that is, prima facie, a perfectly good rule. But, he said, there may be cases where it is difficult or impracticable for a Minister to do that. He ought not to continue on the board of directors of some public concern, such as Brunner Mond, Levers, a railway company, or whatever it may be. There is no reason why he should. He should resign his directorship and let somebody who is not a Minister take his place. But, said Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, there may be cases where it is practically very difficult for the Minister to do that.
He described it as a private company, though I think it was before the days when the technical definition between private companies and public companies had been drawn up. Nowadays, if I am not mistaken, a private company means, among other things, a company that does not issue a prospectus and invite public subscriptions, and things of that sort, but Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, not
laying down an abstract rule for the guidance of Law Courts but as a matter of common sense, said: If my colleague is a director in some family company, some private company, which is really nothing more than a family business which has been turned, for the purpose of convenience, into a company, I do not think I can lay down an absolute rule that he must give it up, and I think, in the circumstances, he might retain it. Of course, always lying behind that rule is the obvious, prime condition that we expect—and we expect in every case—that Ministers of the Crown will always act like honourable men. That was the ruling of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, but the House will see that that has nothing in the world to do with the question as to whether or not a Minister should continue as a director of a company, whether public or private, if the company has contractual relations with the Government, and it seems to me such a pity that this subject, which is a very important one, one on which it is quite in the public interest that we should have profound deliberation and serious conclusions, should be presented in this atmosphere of innuendo and counter-innuendo, which T utterly repudiate, because I have not the faintest doubt in the world that the right hon. Gentleman opposite, whose name has been brought in in this matter, has acted with just as much candour and straightforwardness as the Leader of the Opposition did when he was rebuked in some quarters in connection with the motor car and a firm of biscuit manufacturers.
I do not care which side is taken. You do nothing hut degrade the House of Commons if you seek an occasion to raise these large questions of public conduct in the atmosphere of innuendo and counter-innuendo. But I must say that on the merits of the question itself, it is useless to tell the House of Commons that the ruling of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman decided the point. It decided nothing of the sort. If I may most respectfuly suggest it, without making the smallest reflection upon anybody, I confess I should 'have thought, if a Cabinet Minister came to realise that he was in fact a director of a company which was making contracts with the Government, that most people in. those circumstances would have felt a
little bit the ambiguity of the situation. It is a matter which I have no doubt cannot have been very prominently brought to the right hon. Gentleman's attention, but I repeat, as the Prime Minister has been good enough to come in, that it is not the least the case that this general question is governed by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's rule at all.
The question here—I do not like to put it personally and individually, because it is a general question—is: Should people, when they become Ministers of the Crown, notwithstanding that they avail themselves of the practice by which they may remain directors of a family or private company, continue to be directors when they find out that that company is contractual relations with the Government? I confess that I should have thought there was a vast deal to be said for the view that they should not. The difference between a firm and a company in this matter is purely technical. The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford. University. (Lord H. Cecil) said just now that the old rule, which applied to individuals, arose in very different circumstances, but it is a rule which to-day works sometimes with very great harshness and with extraordinary technicality. T am sure there must be many—and I daresay the Attorney-General is one of them—who have known cases of a Member a the House who, in the most complete good faith, without any knowledge of his own That the thing was being done, has been horrified to find that the firm in which, perhaps, he is merely a sleeping partner as a matter of fact, entered into some perfectly harmless contract with the Government, and yet the House of Commons has thought it well to lay down a rule about it.
It is all very well for the Noble Lord to say that we must leave these things at large, and trust to the honesty and good sense of public men. I am all for affirming the honesty and good sense of public men, bat still, we have found cases where it is desirable rather more precisely to lay down rules of conduct, as much for the protection of ourselves as for any other reason, and the truth is that if you for a moment will consider the case of contractual relations with the Government, there is not really
any substantial difference between a family firm with two or three partners, not one of whom could be a Member of the House of Commons, if there was any contract made with the Government, and the case of a family company, perfectly honestly and properly controlled, which has got two of its members directing and which, for all I know, has got the whole substantial shareholding in one or two hands. This matter has been raised in, I think, a most unfortunate way—I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman—but, being raised, it is a proper subject for the most careful consideration. I wish very much that the Prime Minister, or the Attorney-General, if he is going to speak, would say that it, is the intention of the Government in a clear atmosphere to have the matter investigated, because, as things are, observe how extraordinarly abnormal and how very ridiculous the situation really is! I am not talking about any right hon. Gentleman in particular.
Suppose I were a Member of a Government, and I had been for years a family director of a private company. What is the position? As it is a private company it is within the exception of the Campbell-Bannerman ruling so far as holding Cabinet Office is concerned. If it were a public company, under the Campbell-Bannerman ruling I should either have to resign my directorship or refuse to accept the offer of the office as Minister. Again, in the private company the rule does not apply: seeing that it is a family firm the company may have what contractual arrangement it pleases or can secure from His Majesty's Government. I cannot believe that the Prime Minister, who has the practical business sense, will think this situation is one, which, in the circumstances, there is nothing to be cleared up. It is quite right, I should have thought, that ordinary business people, that ordinary sensible people, will not desire to leave the practice in a state of doubt. For these reasons I should very much like to receive an assurance from the Treasury Bench that this matter is going to be faced by, I hope, with the assent of everybody, even at the risk of mistakes, and made the actual subject, in calm weather, of an impartial inquiry. It would not be right to leave it where it is.
I must conclude by saying—I do not want to leave this in doubt—that I find it quite impossible to vote for this Motion. It is useless for people to protest that it is not intended, or that it is not in the nature of a personal attack. It is in fact the ripost; it is really intended as a retort, as an answer, to some very, very damaging, and I think very injurious things, which have been said at the expense of hon. Members on this side. I can well understand it. It is extraordinary how virtuous we can all be, and in what abstract terms we can express ourselves, when we are engaged in covertly criticising individuals on the other side of the House—in calling the kettle black. I remember the scene very well in which the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) was the ringleader in one of the most disgraceful scenes the House of Commons ever witnessed. As a matter of fact the "Times" described the Noble Lord as "the ringleader in Parliamentary rowdyism." I am not in the least interested in these contests between one set of people and the other. We are all of us always immensely virtuous in general terms at what is thought to be the mistakes of individuals on the other side. I will undertake to say that I can give three cases in turn connected with each of the three parties in which hon. Members will reject and then confirm what I am saying.
Take the Marconi case. Whatever may have been said of the prudence or the propriety of the Marconi investment, it was a monstrous misuse of Parliamentary opportunity to suggest that it was proved corruption—monstrous! Among other people the right hon. Gentleman the present Minister of Health, though he was not then a Member of the House, used sonic very strong language, which I have here. I am content, however, to quote the then Leader, Mr. Balfour, who said:
I regard all this charge of corruption as perfectly futile and absurd from the beginning, and unworthy of the consideration of this House.
Yet there were people in the Conservative party who went on month after month with the plainest suggestion of corruption, largely at the expense of Liberal Members. Exactly the same thing happened the other day when there was some criticism about. the present Leader of the Opposition in regard to his acceptance
of a motor-car. I think that in this particular case he got off much more lightly than most people might have expected. But that does not alter the fact that it would have been a most gross misuse of Parliamentary opportunity if anybody had tried to build up a case against the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon. [Interruption.] I am only saying whoever did that, whatever party did it, it was quite unjustified. The real effect of it is to discredit the reputation of the House of Commons outside. I would appeal to the Prime Minister, if he is going to speak at all, to give us the assurance that in this particular matter there shall be a prompt and impartial inquiry and consideration into what should be done. In the meantime, like decent people, let us all put it on record that we will have nothing to do with innuendo and imputation covertly made against hon. Members in whatever quarter of the House they sit.

Mr. CADOGAN: The Prime Minister, I gathered from his speech, made the observation that this might be an appropriate occasion to investigate the merits of the issue raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson). Those of us, however, who have put our names down to the Amendment moved by the Noble Lord the. Member for 'Oxford 'University (Lord H. Cecil) are surely precluded from taking the course suggested for a very obvious reason. The wording of our Amendment makes it quite clear that while we are all quite willing to have this matter investigated, we decline to have it investigated at a time when it would appear to be a concession to what we insist is an organised campaign of calumny and insinuation. I have never been the ringleader of any disgraceful scene, while have been in this House at any rate, and in this respect I am on a firmer ground than the Noble Lord who moved the Amendment.
I have no intention of following the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion, which I thought ended rather abruptly, as though he did not quite relish the theme which his followers provided for him, nor the: speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston), the chief warrener of the party, whose ferreting in the burrows of Somerset House has apparently met with indifferent success
Perhaps the House will allow me to indulge in a personal reminiscence, seeing that allusion has been made to what took place in 1900, a reminiscence in which in all likelihood very few Members in the House are able to share. I remember distinctly on the occasion of that Debate in 1900 getting a seat in one of the Public Galleries, where I heard that historical Debate, and I am certain it never occurred to my mind on that occasion that after the lapse of many years I would be witnessing the Opposition engaged in the ghoulish occupation of distinterring the dry bones of a controversy which should have been laid to rest a quarter of a century ago. No one shows to advantage in impugning the personal honour of a political opponent, it matters not to what party he belongs. The personal attack too often recoils upon the assailant. Too often the impression is created that the personal attack merely conceals a complete lack of substance in the charge. I am not one of those who care to trace every manœuvre of the Labour party to sinister influences outside this House or even outside this country. But it is difficult to resist the suspicion that these scurrilous attacks upon the integrity of Ministers of the Crown, combined as they are with an obvious attempt to impair the dignity and the prestige of the Imperial 'Parliament, are contrived by some authority over which the Front Opposition Bench have no authority or control.
The attack developed somewhat unexpectedly a few days ago, when the Prime Minister became a target for unworthy disparagement and unworthy insinuations. I do not know what impression was conveyed to the minds of other hon. Members, but for my part the sequence of events was exactly the reverse of what I had anticipated. One might have expected from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition some remonstrance when that attack was made: that he would have administered some rebuke to his followers. Exactly the reverse happened. The right hon. Gentleman remained in his place, with that air of melancholy resignation which has become so familiar to the House. He observed a discreet silence which Members on this side of the House had a right to interpret as a sympathetic acquiescence in the behaviour of his back bench
members. Now we have the attacks developing on a wider front. Its objective is presumably to include the whole of our front line. It is not my intention, as I have said before, to deal with the personal aspect of the matter. The hon. Members immediately concerned, if they consider it worth while, can reply themselves but, as I said before, I will confine myself to exploring the motives which influenced the Opposition to table the Resolution we are now discussing. There are several motives. Perhaps the least reprehensible is to he traced to the old obsession, the undying ambition to break down the capitalist system.
7.0 P.M.
Does any hon. Member on any side of the House really believe in his heart that if one were to alter and revolutionise the whole of our social, industrial and political systems, human nature would be any different to what it is, or that there would be no one on the make and no one with an eye to the main chance? If there be any corruption on an extensive scale in our public life—and I indignantly deny that there is anything of the kind—I believe it would be rather aggravated than modified if our fortunes were entrusted to the hands of those of that type of individual we associate with State control. If the proposal of hon. Members opposite were pressed to its logical conclusion, you would, of course, eliminate many of those elements which are extremely valuable in the conduct of our affairs.
It was pointed out in the Debate which I listened to 26 years ago, that the reductio ad absurdum, of this experiment would be that only a pauper would be eligible to take any part in our public life. I will go further than that and say it would be a pauper both in body and in mind who alone would be eligible to conduct our affairs. Let hon. Members rest assured that the net result of your self-denying ordinance being made rigid and relentless would undoubtedly be to eliminate every element except the professional politician, the street orator, and the hireling agitator. Is that a consummation which is to be desired Surely it is one or the glories of our system that you can attract into the sphere of government representatives of every human interest and every conceivable kind of
human activity. I have always been opposed to the suggestion which has been pressed from those benches opposite that we should meet here in the morning. The reason I have opposed it is that it would undoubtedly mean the elimination of those who have to control interests outside the sphere of political life. That would be the only result of such an innovation, and it is just those men of affairs and business whose judgment and advice is so immensely valuable in this House and in local government as well. It is to those very individuals that we turned for advice and assistance during our peril in the Great War and not to the professional politician or to the hireling agitator, who was not available but was skulking in holes, leaving others to make the world safe for democracy. Hon. Members opposite are always complaining that this country is in the hands of financiers. I would far rather see it in the hands of men who understand finance than have the fortunes of this country at the caprice of men who are utterly ignorant of the first axioms which govern industry.
Before I sit down, I should like to address myself to the motive which it has been alleged by certain hon. Members is actuating those who arc bringing forward this Motion. I am prepared to believe that this is part and parcel of a larger scheme to bring Parliament and democratic government into discredit. No one who has had the devastating experience in the last few weeks of sitting through our Debates could have carried away with him any other feelings than those of repugnance and disgust. I do not know how far any section of the community outside endorses the behaviour we have witnessed in the last few weeks in this House nor do I know how far it will affect the fortunes of the party opposite. They have won a by-election recently, and they may win others again. Success is quite easy for a party who can with impunity indulge the electorate with seductive promises of higher wages and shorter hours without any immediate prospect of having to carry them into fulfilment. But if the party opposite believe that they can find any mandate in any success they have had at the polls for the kind of campaign that has been instituted recently, or that the seal of public opinion is set on the cam-
paign of frightfulness we have recently witnessed, I can only say they are suffering under a very grave delusion.
I believe our institutions will survive long after the echoes of the last few weeks have died away. On the other hand—and this is a serious point—if this combined attack does succeed—and it is not always the right which prevails in our human affairs—then I can only say that there are men in every quarter of this House who rate their own careers and their own small personal ambitions far below their steadfast solicitude for the dignity and honour of the Imperial Parliament, and, if this does succeed, you will hound out of public life men whom, at this particular juncture when pernicious influences are at work, England can ill afford to spare.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I have read the week-end Press, which generally represents the opinions and sometimes is moved by the hand of the Government and its followers, with a great deal of interest, and I have listened to the Debate with a good deal of expectation. I understand that hon. Members opposite, when the next election comes, are going to conduct the campaign at any rate with a certain amount of decency. I am not quite sure that what they are really arguing is this. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Simon) rather seemed to indicate he was arguing this, that if you want to slander anybody, do it outside the House of Commons and not inside.

Sir J. SIMON: indicated dissent.

Mr. MacDONALD: I am quite sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not mean this conclusion, but his argument was that it is degrading to our Parliamentary institutions to bring certain matters like this, which one would call personal affairs and accusations, to the Floor of the House on which our Debates always take place; that the House never shines in these circumstances, and that everybody concerned, whether they sit on that side or this, at the end of the Debate, if they will make a solemn confession, are rather ashamed of the whole affair. That is perfectly true, but the deduction from that surely is that if there is something that is to be brought up relating to the conduct
of Ministers in public affairs, if there is any objection to a certain action—if there is any objection to a certain action of my own, if it were true, as the right hon. Gentleman said outside, in using my position inside, sitting where the Prime Minister now sits, I have acquired certain things to enable me to loll through life in comfortable cars for the rest of my days—candidly I prefer it should be done inside here where there is an opportunity of this kind. It was not taken. Why not?
I wonder whether it is possible for the Attorney-General, who I believe is going to reply, to address himself to the real question which is raised to-clay. It is this. We have a rule relating to Ministers being directors of public companies. I hope that that rule is so well-established now that never will any Minister try to be a director of a public company and at the same time to retain his office in the Government. We have a, rule that so far as the private company is concerned —I hope the House will remember that it is the old-fashioned private company and not the new-fashioned private company, and I want to make it perfectly clear that in making that distinction am not making any accusation against the right hon. Gentleman opposite, as the private company, as I understand it, of which he still remains a director is an old-fashioned company and not a new-fashioned company—

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: indicated assent.

Mr. MacDONALD: What I mean is this. Private companies now have an extended scope and have changed their character on account of the Amendment made to the Public Companies Act; embodied in. the Consolidation Act which followed the Debate of 1906 and the explanations preceding that. But regarding private companies, there was also a rule laid down by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, which I think is a very, reasonable one. It may have to be considered from time to time as circumstances change, but it is a rule which this House can take as the basis of any further consideration which it may have to give to the subject and the basis of any re-drafting which may have to be made regarding the imposing of responsibilities on Ministers.
The reason why it has been laid down, so far as I can make out, that Ministers may, while they are Ministers, retain directorships in private companies was simply this, that in the days when the rule was pronounced a private company was practically an individual or partnership concern. If two or three of us here were partners in a private company, and the success of the business depended on our co-operation, and if no public interest was affected, I think it would be very hard to make it impossible for a Minister, who found it possible, to give his time and to keep his eye and his hand upon the business done by that company. As the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley says, that is not the question raised here. Nobody has raised that question at all. There has been no statement made about the position which the right hon. Gentleman opposite holds in the Government and in this private company, that began with that statement and ended with that statement. I would ask the Prime Minister if he will tell the Attorney-General to answer this: When he knew that his colleague—he says he was informed of it—was a director of a private company, did he know at that time that that private company was holding contracts with various Departments of the State?
That is the whole point. It is a very simple case. Did he know? If the Minister said to the Prime Minister, or to his predecessor, Mr. Bonar Law, "I am a director of a private company," and said nothing more, that would be one thing. If he said, I am a director of a private company, but I ought to warn you that the private company of which I am a director holds contracts with the Government, "that is a totally different thing. May I say, quite candidly, that if anyone were to make the former statement only to me, and the company of which he was a director had contracts with the Government and it was not disclosed to me—well, perhaps it would be better if I drew a curtain over what would happen as soon as I discovered it.
The whole thing is there. That is the kernel of the question, and that is the kernel of this "attack," if you call it so. It is the reason why this Resolution is moved in the House to-day. The very
ingenious Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) tried to widen all this out into the question of conflict of interests and so on. What I felt as I was listening to the Noble Lord was this. If I could have indulged in the luxury of a running interruption, and asked him almost sentence by sentence what exactly he meant by his words—if instead of my having to listen to a speech by him and he having to listen to a speech by me, he had had a conversation with me and I had inquired the real meaning of his words, sentence by sentence and statement by statement, as they fell from his lips—I am not at all sure that we should not in the end have agreed, and that instead of voting against us to-night the Noble Lord would have voted with us. I have got so much confidence in the independence of action of the Noble Lord that I dare to make that prophecy regarding the attitude he would take at the end. He knows perfectly well, in talking about general conflict of interests, that that is formal, that to say that you have got to trust your Ministers is not good enough. He knows that this House has said it is not good enough. He knows that his own Prime Ministers have not trusted their Ministers regarding directorships of public companies.
The Noble Lord accepted the part of the argument that suited him. I do not blame him for that. I knew he would. But I would call to his memory the part of the argument that did not suit him but which suits me and suits the truth, and that is that one of the reasons why it. is improper that a Minister should be a director of a public company is that it is impossible for him to divide himself into two and be two personalities, that he cannot serve the public interest and at the same time sit as a director of a public company without using his knowledge, whether he discloses it or not, in the interests of his company. That is regarded, quite properly, as being a conflict between interests, and in the conflict the personal interests of the Minister would prevail over the national interests which he represented as Minister. The Noble Lord knows perfectly well that it is just because of this conflict of interest that in foreign countries at any rate, a tremendous flood of corruption has crept into the public life. I need not specify. I leave the statement where it is, for I
know perfectly well that everybody who has an intimate knowledge of the evolution of the degradation of public life in some countries on account of the increasing authority of the commercial interests over the political interests can trace that increasing authority to a loose application of the doctrine laid down by the Noble Lord. It really will not do.
The Noble Lord was in great difficulty with his own argument, and he did his best not to show it. He laid down the doctrine about directorships of private companies which had no contracts with the State.

Lord H. CECIL: That is not all.

Mr. MacDONALD: Perhaps the Noble Lord will wait till I have finished, and if I have misrepresented him he will no doubt be good enough to correct me. Then the point as to contracts was reached. When the question of Government contracts was raised, obviously he was in a difficulty, because if any hon. Member—and not only a Minister, but any hon. Member—was a partner in this private company he could not sit in this House. Obviously we cannot leave this working rule where it is, that if three or four hon. Members are partners in a company having contractual relations with the Government they are not eligible for membership of this House—

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: The right hon. Gentleman means partners in a partnership, not in a company.

Mr. MacDONALD: In a firm. I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. It is a technical correction. I had that in mind, but I am very much obliged for the technical correction. If three or four hon. Members are partners in a private firm, they cannot hold contracts with the Government and sit in this House, but if that firm he made a private company, it is the same thing in a changed form, except that certain forms are given it which it had not before. Substantially its business, its trade, its organisation, its offices are the same; you have just got to change a brass plate and issue something or another—I am not sure if you have to do that, for I am not a lawyer; but, as a matter of fact, I have been advised that this private firm could be changed into a private company, and that then the four Members, acting
exactly as they did as partners but now becoming directors of the company, could not only sit in this House but could act as Ministers.
That is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. How does the Noble Lord get out of that? I am sorry we cannot raise this question without referring to personalities. There is no question of personalities. He happens to be the unfortunate man, just as I should have been if he had raised my case here instead of talking about it outside.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I never accused you of corruption.

Mr. MacDONALD: You accused me of worse.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I accused you of inconsistency.

Mr. HARDIE: The insinuation was as to selling things.

Mr. MacDONALD: I am not accusing the right hon. Gentleman of corruption. I defy him to take from my speech now, or anything I have said, anything that would bear that interpretation. But I say the time has come when the House ought to face the facts. I do not like to refer to the right hon. Gentleman. I would prefer to say the right hon. Mr. A. [Laughter.] I am sorry. That can be explained afterwards. It is rather an awkward position we are in, and the House must face the substance of it. There is not a Member of this House, be he Conservative, Liberal or Labour, who will not say that the new liberty, the tremendously extended liberty, that has come on account of the insignificant change that I have just described, is something this House can continue to overlook.
The Noble Lord says he can excuse the right hon. Gentleman in this case because he is assured that he takes no interest in the business, that though it is quite true he is a director, that as a director he does nothing. That is unsatisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman said, I understand—I was away at the time—"I am a trustee." The right hon. Gentleman really must not give currency to the doctrine that a trustee can justify himself for anything by neglect of his trust. [Interruption.] Well, as I say there is nothing further from my mind than what
is known as a personal attack. If hon. Members do not believe me—well. I say that, quite clearly, a question of public policy has come up. There is a new case. We have got rules for a public company and for a private company, but I say the House has got no rules for the private company with Government contracts, and the House ought to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into it.
Let there be no hypocrisy about this. I am perfectly certain that if hon. Members sitting opposite had been sitting here and we had been there they would have regarded this as something which had to be settled in the public interest. I certainly regard it as such, and I have made it clear. I have stated it, I repeat it, and I say it again, that there is no rule and therefore there can be no accusation regarding individual action up to the moment. But I say to this House now that this question has been raised, whether by our Resolution or the Amendment—the Amendment does not go against us. We state it is wrong, and the Noble Lord says, with that wideness of language and of ideas which we know so well, "As a good Tory I cannot allow myself and my friends to vote for this Resolution; there is far too much truth in it; and therefore what I have got to do is to devise some means by which I will get this straightforward Resolution defeated and put a Resolution in its place that practically means the same thing, only, instead of meaning it on Monday, it may mean it on Monday week." I congratulate the Noble Lord.
The right hon. Gentleman may feel that if this Motion is passed it will be a censure upon him, but I would like to point out that if the Noble Lord's Amendment is passed the sentence upon the right hon. Gentleman is "not guilty, but you must not do it again," and I am quite willing to leave it there. Of course, I know the Attorney-General will say that this is related to an attack which was made upon other right hon. Gentlemen and that it is an organised attack. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite cheer, but in order to really gain the cheers of his hon. Friends will the Attorney-General be good enough to deal with the kernel of this subject, that is, the question of
private companies with directors who are members of the Cabinet entering into contractual relations with the Government and excusing themselves by saying that although nominally they are directors as a matter of fact they take no interest in the business? I think the House of Commons ought to protect itself by a new rule against this kind of thing.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): In view of some of the speeches we have heard from the opposite side of the House it is a little important, before the House registers its decision on this Motion, that it should satisfy itself as to what really is the meaning underlying the Motion. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley to say that there is an anomaly and an uncertain condition of the law which wants to be cleared up. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) to say that the development of joint-stock company law makes it necessary further to define the position. It is all very well for the Leader of the Opposition to cite to us the old laws of the eighteenth century, and to remind us that there has been in recent years a great development of company law. He tells us it is unreasonable that if three Members of this House are partners in a firm they lose their seat by contracting with the Government, and if the same three Members formed themselves into a private company they can enter into the same contract with impunity, and he says that that is a matter which requires investigation and regulation. That may be so, but that is not what this Resolution says. That is not the Resolution which deals with the different position of Members of this House, according to whether they are partners or members of a limited company. This Resolution deals with Ministers of the Crown, and in its opening sentence it declares that it is brought forward, not because of an anomaly in the law or an uncertainty as to the position of hon. Members of this House, but in view of the statement made by the Minister of Health in this House last week. The matter does not merely rest with that statement in the Resolution. As the Amendment very truly states, this is no isolated attack, because it is part of a campaign of calumny. We have had attacks upon my right hon. Friend the
Prime Minister, upon my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and we have now this attack upon my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, and yet we are told that this attack contains no charge. Why, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson) was careful to quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT, and he explained that the reason why he did so was that when you are making a charge against your colleagues in this House, you have to be very careful with your loaguage. What does that observation mean if the right hon. Gentleman was making no charge'? It is true that no Member of the House, so far as I know—and nobody outside this House so far as I know—has ventured to formulate a definite and distinct charge against my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, but they have ventured upon a conspiracy of insinuation, which is far worse. The Leader of the Opposition said, in reply to what was stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), that he thought my right hon. Friend was suggesting that a slander could not be uttered inside this House, but only outside.

Mr. MacDONALD: I do not think I said that. At any rate what I meant to convey was that it might be taken that he did mean that.

Sir J. SIMON: I think it is now agreed that I did not mean it, and did not say it.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My right hon. Friend thought somebody else might take it to mean that. What I suggest to this House and to the right hon. Gentleman is that if you have a charge to make, whether inside or outside this House, the right way to do it is to formulate it in definite terms and not make suggestions which you dare not crystallise into a charge. All you say is "I make no charge, but I leave the facts to speak for themselves." I have already said that this is no isolated case but it is part of a campaign and it may well be it is one which the Members of the Opposition on the Front Bench may profoundly regret and disclaim, but they are driven into it by the irresistible pressure of those behind him. Let me give the House, from some of these outside sources, the sort of insinuation which is being made outside this House. I hold in
my hand the latest specimen of the Yellow Press called "Lansbury's Labour Weekly." [An HON. MEMBER: "How much is it?"] It is not worth as much as it costs anyhow. In the "Editor's Corner," on the front page, there is this note to stimulate the interest of the readers:
In the centre pages you will find some fairly startling financial documents about certain Cabinet Ministers. You can make your own comments.
Encouraged by that editorial note, I turned to the centre page, and I found there in big block type across the centre of the page the announcement: "Chamberlains and Baldwins." It is an anonymous article. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Well, at any rate it is not signed.

Mr. LANSBURY: Any newspapereditor is responsible for anything which is unsigned.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I have often seen statements to the contrary. Let me read two or three of these observations:
In these pages we print a further instalment of facts with regard to Baldwins. Ltd., and the profits of that great coal and iron enterprise. But before we had completed this exposure—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members cheer that, and yet they say they make no charge. I will proceed with the quotation—
but before we had completed this exposure news of an even more startling character came to our hands concerning another member of the Cabinet, Mr. Neville Chamberlain. It concerns the shareholdings and directorships of Mr. Neville Chamberlain in certain companies, and also certain shareholdings of his brother, Sir Austen. It also concerns certain Government contracts allotted to these firms. It is not necessary to impute personal and direct corruption to either of the right hon. Gentlemen.
I should think the editor might probably and more truthfully have said it is not safe. The article proceeds:
Commerce and capitalist morality generally is of a kind that has not even a nodding acquaintance with the Ten Commandments, and we are prepared to believe that Mr. Baldwin and the Chamberlain brothers are better specimens than many others. We make no comment whatever upon the Chamberlain revelations. We shall simply recall three well-known facts.
The House will notice that those three "facts" are untrue.
(1) It has been for years a salutary custom that all Ministers should resign their directorships on taking office, and this principle has been reaffirmed this week by Mr. Baldwin.
That is untrue, because the case being dealt with was a private directorship, which is expressly excluded from the rule.
Secondly, it has been a further custom (also endorsed by Mr. Baldwin) that contracts should not he granted to firms in which Ministers are heavily interested.
That is untrue. The third fact is:
It was Mr. Neville Chamberlain who had the arrogance to use the word corruption' in accusing the West Ham Guardians of granting local unemployed, not related to them, a scale of relief ho conceived as too high.
Nobody who heard the Debate last week will agree that that was the charge made against the West Ham guardians. The true rule as to directorships has been repeated so often that I am not going to take up the time of the House by reciting it again. It comes from Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's statement in 1906.The true rule as to contracts has also been laid down by a member of the Liberal party—by no less a person than its Leader, Lord Oxford and Asquith, in 1913; and, since that has not been referred to, I would ask the indulgence of the House while I just cite what he said the rule was. He said this:
I have seen some suggestions made lately indicating a rather exaggerated state of public conscience in some quarters, which are not only impracticable but quite absurd. It is said that a Minister ought not to hold shares in any company with which the Government has or may have a. contract. Are you going really to lay that down as part of the ethics of public life? It is a perfect absurdity.
He went on to give cases, and then laid down a rule, and I would like the House to bear with me and listen to what the rule is, as formulated by that right hon. and most experienced Gentleman:
There is only one rule in relation to that matter. It is a very simple one. It is that if you have, as a shareholder or in any other way"—
that would include, of course, a directorate—
any interest in a Government contract which comes .before you as a Minister—that is, in regard to the making or the execution of it—if you have any voice, whether by way of advice or administration, in making a decision or otherwise, you must
disclose fully to your Parliamentary or administrative chief the nature of your interest, and stand aside while the transaction is going through.
The OFFICIAL REPORT goes on with a note:
"HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!'"
showing that there was general agreement, and then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
I am glad to have got a general agreement on that matter.— OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th June, 1913; cols. 555–6, Vol. 54.]
That is the rule which was laid down in 1913. Does any Member of this House suggest that my right hon. Friend has transgressed it? I have not heard a suggestion, so far, that he has. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition put to me a perfectly legitimate question, which he said he regarded as the kernel of the matter, and was the answer to the question why this Motion had been brought forward—

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: No.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Then I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman again. I am sorry. At any rate, it sounded very like that. The question that he put to me—and I hope I have not got this wrongly—was: Did my right hon. Friend, when he took office, tell Mr. Bonar Law and, later, the present Prime Minister, that the company of which he was a director was one which had Government contracts? That is, I think, fairly stating the question, and I agree that it is a very proper question. The answer is that my right hon. Friend did tell both Mr. Bonar Law and the present Prime Minister—Mr. Bonar Law when he took office in October, 1922, and the present Prime Minister when he took office under him in May or June, 1923. [Interruption.] I am going on to tell the House what Mr. Bonar Law said when he was told. He said to my right hon. Friend—and I would like the House to listen to this, because, after all, it is, as the Leader of the Opposition said, and as I agree, most important—Mr. Bonar Law said, "Do these contracts form a very large proportion of the business of the company? Is it a company which is mainly occupied with Government contracts?" My right hon. Friend assured him that they formed a very trifling portion of its business. I have had the figures given to me for the four years 1922, 1923, 1924 and 1925, and the total pro-
portion of Government contracts to the rest of the business of Messrs. Hoskins arid Sons was 2.08 per cent.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Is the Attorney-General aware that the Minister of Health stated in this House the other day that he did not then know anything about the contracts?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Does the hon. and gallant Member really think that that is inconsistent with what I have said? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] If so, either I was very unfortunate in my statement or he is very limited in his intelligence. My right hon. Friend knew perfectly well that Messrs. Hoskins and Sons had occasionally, as an infinitesimal part of their business, contracts from the Government, and I have told the House what in fact the percentage was during the last four years. He did not know the contracts which were obtained in 1925—I think that was the year mentioned. He did not know about the obtaining of any of those contracts; he knew nothing at all about their existence. There is no inconsistency between knowing that your company occasionally gets a contract from the Government and not knowing that it has got a particular contract.

Mr. MacDONALD: I am sorry to interrupt; I only want to get this doctrine elucidated. Is the doctrine which is now being laid down this—and this is very important, because it will be quoted for years and years—that it is perfectly legitimate to get 6d. out of a Government contract, but not to get 9d. out of it?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No, Sir; neither was that doctrine being laid down nor any other doctrine. I was telling the House, in answer to a specific question from the right hon. Gentleman, what actually happened. He asked me what happened, and surely he cannot complain if I tell him. But before I got to that I laid down the doctrine, not in my own language but in that of the present Lord Oxford and Asquith, that the only one rule is that, if you have any interest in a Government contract, either as a shareholder or in any other way, which comes before you as a Minister, it is your duty to disclose, fully to your Parliamentary or administrative chief the nature of your interest and to stand aside while the transaction is going through.

Mr. MACDONALD: May I just ask—I only want to get at exactly where we stand—

Sir HARRY FOSTER: You asked a specific question.

Mr. MACDONALD: After the laying down of that doctrine by Mr. Asquith, we had a new supplementary doctrine laid down by Mr. Bonar Law. Was I right or was I wrong in assuming that the meaning of that was that, if the Minister had been a director of a company of whose business, say, one-half was Government contracts, Mr. Bonar Law would not have allowed him to continue as a Minister? Am I right in assuming that it was because Government contracts were only 2 per cent. of its business that Mr. Bonar Law agreed that the ministerial office should be held?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The House will realise that it is impossible for me to state with authority what Mr. Bonar Law would or would not, have done. I only referred to the conversation at all because I was specifically asked a question and was anxious to answer it fully. I imagine, however—and here I am merely guessing for myself, and any other Member of the House is just as capable of forming his own opinon—that, if Mr. Bonar Law had found that the principal business of the company was that of Government contracts, he might have said—I do not know—that it was desirable that there should be some other person managing it and that my right hon. Friend should take no part in the proceedings. If that be what he would have said, the House will observe that in fact what my right hon. Friend has done has been exactly what I should anticipate Mr. Bonar Law would in those circumstances have suggested, because he has in fact taken no active part in the management of this company, and knows nothing about its Government contracts.
I have tried to answer the question which was put to me. I have read to the House this Yellow Press attack. [Interruption.] It may well be that, as hon. Members say, it came from Moscow. [HON. MEMBERS "Mustard!"] Oh, mustard. Some people scorn to enjoy very hot stuff, regardless of whether it is accurate or not. I have read that attack in order
to show to the House how right those responsible for this Amendment were in saying that this inquiry cannot be granted by way of concession to a. campaign of calumny. Why is it, the House may ask, that these attacks have been launched one after the other against my right hon. Friend? Why is it that hon. Members opposite have devoted their industry, or have employed others to do it for them, in searching the files of Somerset House? [An HON. MEMBER: "They have a perfect right to do so."] They have a perfect right to do so, but I am asking the reason why. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) was careful to explain in his speech, which was largely devoted to the Coal Mines Bill, that the reason they called the Prime Minister a murderer was because they were afraid that outside, as a result of the Bill, some miners might go back, and, if that be right, if you can suggest to people that the Government are not disinterested in the matter, that they are actuated by interested motives and are playing for their own hand, you are likely, if you can get people to believe that, to destroy the reputation which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has won for his efforts for peace during those last months—[Interruption.[ The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) told us that, if these attacks have now been extended to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, it is not because there was anything startling in the discoveries, but that it is, as the hon. Gentleman himself told us, because my right hon. Friend had the temerity, in the discharge of his duty, to voice in this House charges of corruption against a board of guardians who were not doing their duty.

Mr. JOHNSTON: On a point of correction. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that I definitely stated that that was only one of the reasons why these charges were made.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: As long as the hon. Gentleman said it was one of them, it is the only one which carries any force, and I think I am right—the OFFICIAL REPORT will show to-morrow—in saying that that is the only reason which he thought it necessary to mention.

Mr. JOHNSTON: On a point of correction. I definitely said that in my judgment it was a public duty to do it.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Gentleman said it was a public duty, and he went on to say why. He said it was because my right hon. Friend had brought forward this Bill last week. The fact is that these charges, whatever the motives that actuated, them, are not going to produce the result which some hon. Members opposite seem to hope. In England we do not believe in stabbing a man in the back. [Interruption.] There is such a thing as hitting below the belt, and it does not pay in English circles, whatever foreign mentalities may think of it. These charges, which I agree the Leader of the Opposition was careful not himself to make, but which are fathered and endorsed by the Resolution he has put down, are either believed or not believed by those who insinuate them. If they do not believe them, what does the House think of politicians who are not ashamed to seek to besmirch the honour of their political opponents with charges which they know to be false, in order to gain political advantage? [Interruption.] But if, on the other hand, they do believe them, then what sort of mentality have people who can think that on this material there is any reflection on the honour of a Minister of the Crown? What a flood of light that admission throws on the standard of public life of those who hold those views. I profoundly regret that this Motion has been brought before the House. I regret it, not because of any fears for the honour of the right hon. Gentleman whom I am proud to call my friend—his honour stands too high to be reached by mud scooped from the gutter Press; his honour rests protected by the esteem and admiration of his fellow-citizens—but I profoundly regret that this Motion has been brought forward, because, after all, we are all Members of this House of Commons, and we are all jointly custodians of its traditions, and I cannot help feeling that a Resolution put down in these circumstances and using this language is putting upon our Parliamentary system and upon our Parliamentary honour a stain which even its certain and overwhelming defeat will never entirely wipe out.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. WALLHEAD: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Divide!

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Commander Eyres Monsell): rose in his place, and claimed to move; "That the Question he now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House proceeded to a Division.

Major Sir HARRY BARNSTON and Major COPE were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but there being no hon. Members willing to act as Tellers fur the Noes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes 95; Noes, 341.

Division No. 363.]
AYES
[8.7 p.m.


Alexander, A.V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Riley, Ben


Ammon, Charles George
Hayday, Arthur
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hayes, John Henry
Scrymgeour, E.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Scurr, John


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sexton, James


Barnes. A.
Hirst, G. H.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barr, J.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sitch, Charles H.


Batey, Joseph
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smillie. Robert


Broad, F. A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bromley, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snell, Harry


Buchanan, G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stephen, Campbell


Compton, Joseph
Kelly, W. T.
Sullivan, J.


Cove, W. G.
Kennedy, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Dalton, Hugh
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Taylor, R. A.


Day, Colonel Harry
Kenyon, Barnet
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James K. (Derby)


Dennison, R.
Kirkwood, D.
Thurtie, E.


Duncan, C.
Lansbury, George
Tinker, John Joseph


Gardner, J. P.
Lawrence, Susan
Townend, A. E.


Gibbins, Joseph
Lawson, John James
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Gillett, George M.
Lee, F.
Viant, S. P.


Gosling, Harry
Lowth, T.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lunn, William
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon.J. R.(Aberavon)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Greenall, T.
Mackinder, W.
Whiteley. W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Montague, Frederick
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Windsor, Walter


Groves, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W
Young Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Ponsonby, Arthur



Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)
Purcell, A. A.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards.


Hardle, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut,-Colonel
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Clayton, G. C.


Agg Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Briscoe, Richard George
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Alexander. E. E. (Leyton)
Brittain, Sir Harry
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool,W. Derby)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Braun-Lindsay, Major H.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)


Apsley, Lord
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Buckingham, Sir H.
Cooper, A. Duff


Astor, Maj. Hr. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Bullock, Captain M.
Cope, Major William


Astor, Viscountess
Burman, J. B.
Cooper, J. B.


Athoil, Duchess of
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Courtauld, Major J. S.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Butt, Sir Alfred
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn, N.)


Balniel, Lord
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Caine, Gordon Hall
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Campbell, E. T.
Crawfurd, H. E.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Crocke, J. Smedley (Deritend)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Bennett, A. J.
Cazaiet, Captain Victor A.
Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Berry, Sir George
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert


Betterton, Henry B.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)
Dalkeith, Earl of


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Chapman, Sir S.
Dalziel, Sir Davison


Blundell, F. N.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Chilcott, Sir Warden
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Christle, J. A.
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovil)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Brass, Captain W.
Clarry, Reginald George
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.
Roberts, E. H, G. (Flint)


Dixey, A. C.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Drewe, C.
Jacob, A. E.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)


Eden, Captain Anthony
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Ropner, Major L.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Jephcott, A. R.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Jones, G. w. H. (Stoke Newington)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Ellis, R. G.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Rye, F. G


Elveden, Viscount
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Salmon, Major I.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Kidd, J. (Linilthgow)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Falie, Sir Bertram G.
Lamb, J. Q.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Fanshawe Commander G. D.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Savery, S, S.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mol. (Renfrew, W)


Foster, Sir Harry s.
Locker- Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Loder. J. de v.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Fraser, Captain Ian
Looker, Herbert William
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Frece, Sir Walter de
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Skelton, A. N.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lumley, L. R.
Slaney, Major p. Kenyon


Ganzonl, Sir John
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Smithers, Waldron


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Macintyre, Ian
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Goff, Sir Park
McLean, Major A.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Gower, Sir Robert
Macmillan, Captain H.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Grace, John
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden,E.)


Grant,- Sir J. A.
Macquisten, F. A.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Greene, W. p. Crawford
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Greenwood, Rt. Hn.Sir H.(W'th's'w, E)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Storry-Deans, R.


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Margesson, Captain D.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Grotrian, H. Brent
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Meller, R. J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Merriman? F. B.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hall, Vice-Adml. Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Hanbury, C.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Harris, Percy A.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Harrison, G. J. C.
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Haslam, Henry C.
Murchison, C. K.
Waddington, R.


Hawke, John Anthony
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Wells, S. R.


Herbert, Dunnis (Hertford, Watford)
Nuttall, Ellis
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Herbert, S. (York. N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Oakley, T.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hills, Major John Waller
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hilton, Cecil
Oman, Sir C.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hoard, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Wilson M. J. (York, N. R , Richm'd)


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Pennefather, Sir John
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Penny, Frederick George
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George


Holt, Captain H. P.
Perkins. Colonel E. K.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Perring, Sir William George
Wise, Sir Fredric


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Withers, John James


Hopkins, J. W. w.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wolmer, Viscount


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Philipson, Mabel
Womersley. W. J.


Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Pleiou, D. P.
Wood. E.((Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Pilcher, G.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Preston, William
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Ramsden, E.
Wragg, Herbert


Hume, Sir G. H.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Huntingfield, Lord
Reid, Captain A. S. C. (Warrington)
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Hurd, Percy A.
Remer. J. R.



Hurst, Gerald B.
Remnant, Sir James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.ߞ


Hutchison,G.A.Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Rentoul, G. S.
Commander B. Eyres-Monsell and Colonel Gibbs.


Illffe, Sir Edward M.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.



Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.

Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put.

The House divided: Ayes, 341; Noes, 98.

Morrison, K. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Murchison, C. K.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Rye, F. G.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Nelson, Sir Frank
Salmon, Major I.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Waddington, R.


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W


Nuttall, Ellis
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Oakley, T.
Savery, S. S.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Oman, Sir C.
Shaw, Lt.-Col A.D.Mcl. (Renfrew,W)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Wells, S. R.


Pennefather, Sir John
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Penny, Frederick George
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Skelton, A. N.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Perring, William George
Slaney, Major p. Kenyon
Wilson. M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Smith, R.W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Philipson, Mabel
Smithers, Waldron
Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George


Pleiou, D. p.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Pilcher, G.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Withers, John James


Preston, William
Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden, E.)
Wolmer, Viscount


Ramsden, E.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Womersley, W. J.


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Wood. E.(Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Remer, J. R.
Storry-Deans, R.
Woodcock. Colonel H. C.


Remnant, Sir James
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Rentoul, G. S.
Strickland, Sir Gerald
Wragg, Herbert


Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Rice, Sir Frederick
Styles, Captain H. Walter
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich'


Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser



Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Commander B. Eyres-Monsell and Colonel Gibbs.


Ropner, Major L.
Tasker, Major R. Inlgo





NOES.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Riley, Ben


Amman, Charles George
Hayday, Arthur
Ritson. J.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hayes, John Henry
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Baker, J. (Wolverthampton, Bilston)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Scrymgeour, E.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Scurr, John


Barnes, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Sexton, James


Barr, J.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Batey, Joseph
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sitch, Charles H.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smillie, Robert


Broad, F. A.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bromley, J.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Snell, Harry


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Buchanan, G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, T.
Sullivan, J.


Compton, Joseph
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sutton, J. E.


Cove, W. G.
Kenyon, Barnet
Taylor, R A.


Dalton, Hugh
Kirkwood, D.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Day, Colonel Harry
Lansbury, George
Thurtle, E.


Dennison, R.
Lawrence, Susan
Tinker, John Joseph


Duncan, C.
Lawson, John James
Townend, A. E.


Gardner, J. P.
Lee, F.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Gibbins, Joseph
Lowth, T.
Viant, S. P.


Gillett, George M.
Lunn, William
Wallhead, Richard C.


Gosling, Harry
MacDonald, Rt. Hon.J. R.(Aberavon)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mackinder, W
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Greenall, T.
March, S.
Whitelev. W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Montague, Frederick
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Windsor, Waller


Groves, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Ponsonby, Arthur



Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)
Purcell. A. A.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards.


Hardle, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Resolved,
That this House, while willing on any suitable occasion to review by Select Committee or otherwise the rules and practices which have hitherto guided the action of Ministers in respect of their private in-
terests during their tenure of office, which rules have been on all occasions strictly observed by His Majesty's present Ministers, declines to enter upon any such task by way of concession to an organised campaign of calumny and insinuation which has no justification in fact.

SUPPLY.

REPORT [7TH JULY ]

Resolutions reported,

CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1926–27.

UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.

1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, to provide for the purchase and importation of Coal in connection with the Stoppage in the Coal Industry."

2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £433,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for certain Expenses incurred in setting up and, maintaining Organisations for supplying the Necessities of Life and in connection with the maintenance of order during an Emergency and for Grants in respect of Emergency Police Expenditure."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move to leave out "£3,000,000," and to insert instead thereof " £2,999,900."
I move this reduction in order to draw attention to the extraordinary answer that I received to-day from the Secretary for Mines. It raises a very big question. When the Home Secretary was explaining the necessity for this Bill for setting up a revolving credit for the purchase of coal, he said that it was necessary to safeguard the coal supplies for poor people and the smaller municipalities. He said that the great municipalities and the great firms could find their own coal, but that the small municipalities, urban district councils and so on could buy this Government coal. I naturally supposed that they would not only be allowed to buy the coal, but to sell it to their own ratepayers. To make quite certain, I put the following question to the Minister of Health to-day:
Whether the small municipalities who buy Government coal during the present emergency will be permitted to distribute it?
I received a reply, not from the Minister of Health, but from the Secretary for Mines, as follows:
Yes, Sir, where this cannot be done satisfactorily through the ordinary trade channels.
That presumes that in any part of the country, however rural or remote, there will be some local coal factor or coal merchant who is always prepared to distribute the coal satisfactorily through the usual channels. Of course, there will be. There is always some local coal merchant prepared to distribute the coal, and he will probably be the nominee of a colliery company. It is common knowledge that in the case of thousands of these coal distributing firms, the shares are held by colliery companies. The colliery companies have nominally independent coal merchanting companies to whom they sell their coal, and the companies pass on the coal at a profit to the consumer.
The object of my question was to make quite certain that the municipalities who buy this Government coal will be able to sell it to the people in their district. The Government are going into the coal importing business: this new flourishing industry of importing coal into the greatest coal-exporting country in the world. The Government are acting on the principle of "carrying coals to Newcastle." They will sell the coal to the municipalities, plus, I suppose, a small overhead charge to cover costs. May I ask the Secretary for Mines what the extra charge will be? I do not want him to give away any trade secrets, but perhaps he can tell us what will be the percentage of overhead charges that the Mines Department will charge in passing the coal on to the purchaser?
I naturally supposed that the smaller municipalities would be allowed to distribute the coal. If they bought coal from the Government for their gasworks and turned it into gas, they could sell the gas to the consumer, but they are not to be allowed to sell the coal. That has to be done, apparently, through the ordinary trade channels.

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): indicated dissent.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. and gallant Member shakes his head. He said in his answer to me that where satisfactory arrangements exist— we all know that there is always a coal distributing firm in a district—the small municipalities will not be allowed to sell the coal. If I am wrong, I accept correction, if the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to deny what he said at Question Time. The Government are doing a
wicked thing. The price of coal is rising weekly. Figures have been given from great cities showing what the poor have to pay for coal. These people are in no way concerned with the dispute; they are what the Home Secretary called the non-combatants. When people go to night clubs their rights are to be observed, but when they are poor people buying coal they will have to buy from what the Secretary for Mines calls "the ordinary channels," that is, they will have to rely upon the ordinary law of supply and demand. They are going to be sweated and profiteered against by the coal merchant. That is morally wrong and wicked in the present circumstances; it is even worse in view of the findings of a Royal Commission which cost the country about £22,000,000 for the production of its Report. We bought off the coal stoppage or lock-out at a cost of £22,000,000, in order that the Report might be forthcoming. The Report was prepared by one of the ablest politicians, even in my party, as chairman—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The hon. and gallant Member cannot be too historical.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It was a, recommendation of that Report that the municipalities should be able to sell coal, even in ordinary circumstances, when the ordinary law of supply and demand was in operation. The law of supply and demand has become oppressive, because of the shortage of coal consequent upon the long-continued dispute, and yet when the need is greater than in normal times, municipalities are not to be allowed to distribute the coal which they buy from the Government.


            Colonel LANE FOX indicated dissent.
            Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
          : The right hon. Gentleman again shakes his head. I put this question to him: Are they to be allowed to distribute the coal?

Colonel LANE FOX: Where there are satisfactory arrangements by which they can distribute through the ordinary channels the local authorities will make use of them, but where there are no satisfactory ordinary channels, they will have to distribute themselves.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am glad to have had that information.
Will the ordinary coal factors be considered a satisfactory means for the distribution of this coal, for which the British taxpayer is paying? Will that be considered satisfactory machinery? The fact of the matter is that there is no intention on the part of the Government to allow any municipality to deal in coal as long as they can prevent it. They will fight for that until they are swept out at the next General Election. I think it is wrong, and I am moving this reduction to mark my appreciation of the utter collapse of the present Government's coal policy. They came into power in order to help British trade and British goods, to recover our lost markets, and here we are, a country possessing the richest and greatest coal fields in the world, a country which has been in the forefront of the coal exporting nations, holding that trade against all attempts of our rivals to take it from us, with the situation absolutely reversed as the result of 20 months of Tory rule. We are bringing coal into the greatest coal producing country in the world and it is owing to an utter lack of statesmanship and courage. I cannot let this Vote go without making some protest and if I am fortunate enough to find a Seconder, I shall most certainly divide the Committee.

Mr. BATEY: I beg to Second the Amendment.
I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that there is no question of getting a Seconder for the Amendment or someone to support him in dividing the Committee upon it. As miners' representatives we regard this Vote as one of the worst that can come before the Committee, and we should not be doing our duty to the miners who .are locked out and in a state of semi-starvation if we allowed it to go without the strongest and bitterest protest we can make. This Vote is but another move on the part of the Government to defeat the miners. They have tried other methods before and they have failed. The Prime Minister, soon after the lockout started, tried proposals which would mean a wage reduction for the miners—and they refused them. Then the Government carried through this House their Eight Hours Bill with the clear and definite intention of defeating the miners in this struggle. There was no other object in pushing that Bill through
this House. The Government thought that by it they would defeat the miners. The Eight Hours Bill is on the Statute Book, and the miners are not defeated yet. They have not jumped at the increase of hours as the Government believed would be the case. Then the Government have tried to defeat the miners by making it impossible for them to be paid Poor Law relief, but that has not defeated them; and I am certain that this method will fail as well.
I wish the Secretary for Mines would realise that, so far as the miners are concerned, this is not a fair fight. The Government, as well as the coalowners are relying on starving the miners into submission. We can leave the coalowners alone for the moment because we believe that bad as are the coalowners the Government are worse. There is no question about that. The Government is encouraging?; the coalowners, but the Government are using all their resources in order to defeat the miners. It is not a fair fight. The Government and the coalowners are relying on starving the miners into submission, but if the miners could get sufficient funds to keep them going—the coalowners and the Government would never defeat them. It is only the weapon of starvation that will defeat them, and the Government are relying upon that weapon. Before this Vote is passed, the Secretary for Mines should tell the Committee why this coal is brought into the country. He has not done so yet. He has shown no need for this importation. Last week the Home Secretary told us that it was not the intention of the Government to import coal for gas works, electricity undertakings, railways or big municipalities. I was surprised at the answer which the Secretary for Mines gave to the hon. and gallant Member this afternoon, because it seemed to indicate a change on the part of the Government from the statement of the Home Secretary last week. We understood last week that there was no intention on the part of the Government to buy coal far municipalities, but the Secretary for Mines has rather qualified that statement to-day, and seems to imply that some of this imported coal will be supplied to municipalities for their disposal. What is the need for this coal? What has asked for it? Who
wants it? Above all, is there not sufficient coal imported by private enterprise for the needs of all those who want coal without the Government going into the business and using all the resources of the State in order to defeat the miners?
I want the Secretary for Mines to tell us whether in buying this coal we are simply buying it for working needs, or whether we are entering into contracts for its supply, and, if so, when these contracts are to terminate. The lock-out in 1921 terminated on the 4th July, but owing to the fact that the Government had signed contracts for coal we had coal coming into this country for months after the lock-out had ended. In the month of October no less than 600,000 tons of coal were imported into this country, and at a time when the coal mines were working. The importation of that coal meant, when the collieries should have been re-started, that our collieries had to remain idle, although our own coal was immensely cheaper than the imported coal; our miners were not able to work because this imported coal was being brought into the country. I do not think that the Secretary for Mines should attempt to shelter himself behind a veil of secrecy, pretending that it is not wise to say this or that, to give the price, or to say where the coal is bought, or where it is coming to, or its quantity. The Government ought to be prepared to tell the House just what they are paying for the coal, whether it is being bought by contract, and when the contract will end.
Will the imports cease as soon as the lock-out ceases? If not, that fact will make us far more bitter in our opposition, and we are bitter enough now so far as this lot is concerned. We believe that our people are in a state of semi-starvation because of the action of the Government. We believe that we are entitled to urge the Government to use the powers which they have under the Emergency Powers Act, and to take possession of the coal pits and produce coal without importing from abroad. We have long passed the day when a coalowner could claim to do just what he pleased with his own. We believe that there is no one in this country who is entitled to do just what he pleases with his own. When a coalowner says, "I am going to do what I like with my pit; I will work it if I please or close it if I please, and keep it
closed as long as I please," any fair or any unprejudiced Government would say to the coalowner, "You are not going to close your pit when you please, and you are not going to keep it closed as long as you please. You have to work it in the public interest, and if you do not work it we will take the pit from you, and we will work it in the interests of the country and of the men."

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It appears to me that what the hon. Member is suggesting would require legislation.

Mr. BATEY: I submit that you have forgotten that we have passed the Emergency Powers Act. Regulation No. 14 gives the Board of Trade the power.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It might give them the power for a month, but the hon. Gentleman appears to be suggesting that the Government should take the mines over altogether.

Mr. BATEY: No.

Mr. SULLIVAN: I submit that my hon. Friend's argument is quite in order, for in one month we could produce far more coal than the £3,000,000 will purchase.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the hon. Member merely suggests that the Government should take over the mines for the period of the emergency it would be in order.

Mr. BATEY: That is what is in my mind. We fought the Emergency Regulations as long as we could. We said that the only good Regulation was Regulation No. 14, which gave to the President of the Board of Trade the power to take over the pits. We believe that that is what the Government should do. If the Government took over the pits for a month the owners would not try to impose on the men such abominable conditions as they are attempting to impose now. We had experience in 1921 of the importation of coal. In that year the coal that was bought cost no less than £3 12s. 9d. a ton. If the Government took possession of the mines they would get the coal produced in this country at a far lower price than that. Certainly, if the miners to-day asked- to be paid at such a rate that it would involve the selling of coal at £3 12s. 9d. a ton, there would be a rare
outcry against the selfishness of the miners. The Government paid this huge price in 1921, and I assume that they are foolish enough to pay as high a price again if only they can defeat the miners in the present struggle. I assume, unless the Secretary for Mines contradicts me and produces evidence, that they are paying to-day as much as £3 12s. 9d. a ton. If they are, it is a scandal.
I believe that the struggle will go on for a long time yet. We cannot see the end of it, unless the Government change their ways and become much more reasonable than they are. I would not be surprised to see the Government again come to the House and ask for a far bigger Vote than £3,000,000 for the purpose of buying coal. In 1922, after the 1921 lockout, the Government had to get a Vote for over £7,000,000. If they did that after the 13 weeks' lock-out in 1921, what is the £3,000,000 going to do after a lock-out which certainly will not finish in 13 weeks and may last even to Christmas? If the Government can only defeat the miners, they are prepared to lose £3,000,000. The explanation attached to this Vote says that it is
to cover any loss which may be incurred on the liquidation of stocks not resold.
The Government will shelter themselves behind that wall, if they should lose the whole sum of £3,000,000. In 1921 they lost £238,000, and the Government ought not to forget the lesson of 1921. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) who was in power in 1921 lost that £238,000 in order to defeat the miners. But he paid for it. He was swept from power and he will never get back to power again, and when the next Election comes the present Prime Minister will be swept from power. We would not complain if the Prime Minister had the courage to test the country on this dispute at the present time, because, if he did so, labour would very soon be an occupation of the benches opposite, and for the handful of Conservatives who would be returned, one or two of the benches on this side would be sufficient. The Government are in power with the aid of working-class votes. If it were not for the votes of working men and working women, I do not believe they would be in power, but they cannot expect to retain those votes by starving a million and a
quarter miners and miners' wives and bairns. That will influence other members of the working classes.
Men may think they can do as they please, but there is always a judgment day, and there will be a judgment day for this Government when they will be judged and cast into the outer darkness. One knows it is no use appealing to the Government. We are beyond that stage. We make no appeal to the Government. But the miners at the moment have their backs to the wall. They can fight and they will fight, so long as they believe that the object of the Government and the coalowners is to push them further down into the gutter of poverty. The Government may succeed by these various methods, after weeks or months, in starving the miners into submission, but that will not be the end of the matter. If the men are driven back to work on the terms, which the Government with the resources of the State are trying to enforce, they will agitate and do everything they can and use the very first opportunity to get their own back. Of all the methods which the Government have used to defeat the miners, the importation of blackleg coal is one of the worst. They may succeed at the moment, but their success will have an end, and there will be a day of retribution.

Mr. WALLHEAD: This Vote is part of what I would describe as a scandalous misuse of the Government's power for the purpose of defeating the mining population in the struggle in which they are now engaged. It is an illustration of the way in which the powers of finance and influence have been used in this House for generations. The Government may say what they like about this Vote, but they are using their powers for the purpose of helping to defeat the workers and to assist the mineowners. The Government represent to a large extent the coalowners of the country. The Conservative party has within its ranks the great royalty owners and the great coalowners, and they are using political and Parliamentary methods in order to bring victory to their own side in this industrial dispute. We had a Debate earlier to-day on the question of persons owning certain interests and at the same time holding positions in the Government, and I agree
with the Prime Minister when he says it is exceedingly difficult to imagine a House of Commons in which there were not represented interests that could be directly influenced by political actions. What we have always said to the working people outside is that this House of Commons has always used its political power, based upon economic power, for the maintenance of the capitalist interest against the interest of the great mass of the people outside. I say that is what is being done now by the use of the Government's power in forcing this Vote through the House.
9.0 P.M.
I have no doubt when this Vote has gone through, and when the Government have lost a considerable sum, we shall find them again making use of the old dodge, and telling the people that this experiment in State Socialism has been of a fatal character. The Government assume they are going to lose money. This Vote is intended to cover any loss which may accrue on the sale of coal or through stocks on hand when the dispute is at an end and the necessity for purchasing coal no longer exists. Are they going to sell the coal at cost price? Why do they not make a profit on the coal which they sell in order to cover their loss? The million men whom the Government are trying to defeat in this way are people who themselves must be taxed in order to pay, in part, for the loss which the Government incur in a trading transaction designed to bring about their industrial defeat. It is a monstrous use of political power, and it is a thing of which the Government ought to be thoroughly ashamed. If they were composed of different types of people, they would be ashamed. When it is all done, this Government, that came in with the idea of establishing industrial peace and giving the country stability, will have rendered stability and peace further off than ever. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) has pointed out, you may by this means defeat the miners, send them back to their work, and beat them till the point of endurance has been broken, not because the men cannot endure, but because of the conditions imposed upon their families. We are getting remarkable and astounding letters, in their poignancy and anguish, coming through from the mining districts, stories that shock one's sense of
humanity—

Mr. ERSKINE: Why are you preventing them going back?

Mr. WALLHEAD: We are not. It is your party that is preventing them. To what do you want them to go back? You want us to help you to send these men back to economic slavery. These men, according to your own Commission, do not earn a reasonable living at the present time. [An HON. MEMBER: "They can go back at the same wages!"] There is not a single coalfield in the country that has offered the men the same wages. Every one of the owners has gone back on wages. Your party cannot even make a gentlemen's agreement with these coalowners. The Prime Minister himself attempted to make a bargain with them over the Eight Hours Bill, and, as I pointed out the other day, before the Bill became law, the gentlemanly owners of coal, with whom you are attempting to come to a gentlemen's agreement, have gone back on the men and imposed conditions which they dared not put before the Prime Minister when they were making their deal. The Prime Minister may be pretty bad, but he is not so bad as that, and he dared not do it for the sake of his own party. He must save some rag of decency for it, because it must appeal to the country, sooner or later We are getting messages from the various districts in which men tell us they are living on one meal a day.

Mr. ERSKINE: Your fault.

Mr. WALLHEAD: It is not our fault. It is the fault of this Government, that dare not act upon the Report of their own Commission, and have repudiated the findings of every Coal Commission that this House has set up, all of them declaring that the coal trade is in a state of chaos. The Government have not done anything to redeem it, so far as that chaos or any scheme of organisation is concerned. This House has been engaged prior to this Resolution in formulating a scheme, but the owners laugh at them, and they are no more than sloppy sentimentality and sloppy eye wash. This Resolution ought to be defeated, and, as far as we are concerned, we will fight it as long as we possibly can and the forms of this House permit. While there is a form or a Parliamentary method of procedure that we can use for the purpose of delaying
and hindering the passage of your Bills and Measures and Resolutions, in your attempt to deal a knock-out blow to these men who are fighting so gallantly to defend their standard of life, if we can stop you assisting the mineowners to give what they call a "damned good hiding" to the miners, with your connivance and assistance, we will do it to the limit of our ability and power.

Colonel LANE FOX: I do not think I can follow the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Wallhead) in his wide range over the whole question of the coal dispute, but I will try to limit my remarks to the Supplementary Estimate which we are discussing, and I should like first of all to repudiate the remark made by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), when he said that this was merely another method for defeating the miners.

Mr. BATEY: There is no question about it.

Colonel LANE FOX: Hon. Members opposite should consider other people's opinions besides their own; those who do not do so do not go very far. I should like to point out that any Government faced with a great stoppage in the coal industry would be absolutely bound to take the course, which we are taking, of arranging for this reserve supply of coal. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) raised a point about local authorities having power to buy coal and distribute it. I think he must have misunderstood the answer I gave to a question. I have not got either the question or the answer before me now, but I will tell the House the method by which we intend to proceed. As the House has already been told, it is not intended that the Government should carry all the big undertakings, the railway companies, the big gas companies and the big local authorities, and so on. They can look after themselves, but there are a certain number of smaller authorities which are not capable of making arrangements at a distance for buying foreign coal, and securing that the people in their immediate neighbourhood are saved from serious trouble and distress. Therefore, it is necessary that there should be a reserve supply, and the object of this Estimate is to make sure that where any weaker local
authority, or small gas company, or whatever it may be, is in need and cannot get coal elsewhere, there shall be this supply which the Government can sell to them. We shall in all cases try to sell to cover the costs and expenses of distribution, but not to make a profit.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has the right hon. Gentleman calculated the overhead charges? What does he reckon the cost is going to be per £100,000, for instance? He can tell me quite well without giving any of the prices.

Colonel LANE FOX: I cannot give the hon. and gallant Member any details of that sort. I can only tell him that the Government are satisfied that they will be covered, and that the arrangements which they have made are in every way satisfactory and better than those which were made on the last occasion, which was in 1921, I think. We have profited by some of the mistakes that were then made, and we have been able thereby to make better arrangements now than were possible then. The hon. and gallant Member asked me a question as to the smaller local authorities. In the ordinary case, when there is any undertaking which needs coal, that coal will be sold direct to it, and in cases where local authorities require to buy coal for distribution to households in the ordinary course, every local authority, as a rule, is anxious to use the ordinary means of distribution, for the simple reason that it saves them a great deal of trouble and makes the distribution very much easier, but where that cannot be done the local authorities will be able to buy from the Government and arrange to distribute it themselves. The point will always be kept in mind, however, that wherever Government coal is sold some undertaking will be secured by which that coal will not be allowed to be sold at a profiteering price, and with the coal in our possession we can secure the undertaking from those to whom we sell that the coal sold to them shall not be sold by them at a profiteering price. One big result of this Government undertaking, therefore, will be that, whereas a great deal of private importation of foreign coal is going on, and some hon. Gentleman has suggested that some of the imported coal will be sold at an enhanced profit, the fact that Government coal will
be being sold at a reasonable price will tend to keep the general level of prices down.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government can prevent profiteering. Have they taken any steps actually to prevent it up till now?

Mr. SULLIVAN: Is it the, intention of the Government to compete with private buyers in the purchase of foreign coal?

Colonel LANE FOX: One of the strongest reasons for the secrecy that the Government are observing is that the fact of Government buying may not raise the price against the private buyer. The Government do not want to do anything to discourage private importation of coal, for the simple reason that the more coal there is privately brought into the country the greater the competition and the greater chance there will be for those who are buying it.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Are the Government selling this coal at a price to cover any loss?

Colonel LANE FOX: The hon. Gentleman does not want coal to come into the country, and he wants all the small authorities to be prevented from getting coal to the poor people. Failing that, the next best thing, he thinks, is to raise the price of coal all over the country, and he wants to achieve his end in that way. I only hope that he will not get his wish in this matter. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr.Batey)—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and 40 Members being present—

Colonel LANE FOX: The hon. Member for Spennymoor, several times during his speech, consigned the Government to outer darkness; I can only hope that he will be as bad a prophet in this matter as in most other respects. He also referred to the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) on the occasion of the last strike, but the country, suggested the hon. Member, was annoyed over the action of that right hon. Gentleman and he was struck from power. I was always under the impression that it was the action of the
Conservative party that drove the right hon. Gentleman from office—and they succeeded him—although they had supported his action in importing coal—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman cannot go into that matter now.

Colonel LANE FOX: I am sorry, but perhaps I was led away by the irrelevancies of the hon. Member for Spennymoor.

Mr. BATEY: No, no!

Colonel LANE FOX: I do not think there is anything else I can deal with in the Estimate. The hon. Member for Spennymoor asked: "Why do you not take over the collieries and run them yourselves?" The hon. Member does not expect an answer to that question, does he?

Mr. BATEY: Why not?

Colonel LANE FOX: If the hon. Member does, then there is an excellent chapter in the Report of the Coal Commission which I would commend to the hon. Gentleman to read, if he has not already done so. The object of the action of the Government, in submitting this Estimate, is to avoid preventible suffering. It is in no sense because of any desire to defeat the miners or anybody else, but to obtain coal for those who could not obtain it otherwise than at excessive prices. Therefore, I ask those who vote against this Resolution to realise what they are doing.

Mr. SULLIVAN: Various questions have been put to the right hon. Gentleman. I should like to ask him one or two. Is it the intention of the Government to enter into competition on the Continent with private buyers? Are the Government going to set up agencies for themselves, or are they going to utilise the existing agencies, for there is experience in the past to warn them on this head? Personally I differ to a great extent from some of my colleagues here in that I think the miners should make up their minds to stop getting coal altogether. The miners should simply give it up and let the Government get the coal wherever they think fit. The action of the Government is opening the eyes, not only of the miners, but of the general community. The present situation is that the country
requires coal and the action of the Government proves that the country requires coal. What attitude are the Government taking? They are not compelling the mineowners to open their pits, they are not giving the miner a fair chance to get the coal, but they are rushing to the Continent or somewhere else to get the coal. Things were said here with regard to another foreign importation, that of money from another country. They are very strong on that and would like to keep it out, but their own supporters and their spokesmen on the Front Bench have no shame whatever in saying that they will pay other people for coal while they keep their own pits idle and while our own people starve.
The night before the general stoppage I spoke on this aspect. At that time I was appealing to the Government to assist those men who were trying to keep peace in the coalfield. Unfortunately, the Government did nothing, and we made a mistake in appealing to them because the psychology of their supporters is such that if people appeal to them they think they are weak and afraid. They do not give us credit for having the welfare of the country at heart as much has they have. The Government have rushed from blunder to blunder in connection with this dispute. You may be nearer the end by the number of weeks that have elapsed since, hut, so far as the miners' power of resistance is concerned, it is as strong to-day as it was at the beginning. I do not share those alarming suggestions that some people make that our men are going to be beaten. I believe the conditions as to the men are such that no self-respecting miner can accept them. The Government, instead of being neutral, have taken sides openly on the part of the employer. No friend of the Government can stand up and say that they are neutral in this dispute. The Prime Minister interfered with proposals that were almost an insult to the working man. Those were the proposals that the miners turned down. Because the miners rejected those proposals they came to the House for an extension of the working time. The followers of the Government and their Press told them that that was all that they required to do and that the miners would be drifting back to work. As a matter of fact, you have hardened the resistance of the miners, and there is no danger of
their going back on the conditions laid down.
I have never been deceived in connection with this dispute. The coalowners wanted a stoppage. They had a Conservative Government in power that was very subservient—to coalowners at least—and they wanted a stoppage. They wanted to get rid of the things that were suggested in the way of reorganisation. They were prepared to fight. One of them told me that assuming the strike lasted four months—he said three months at first and I said it would be longer than that—it was better to fight on this issue and get rid of the other suggestions. They have no intention of reorganising the coal industry. I do not think that the party on the other side of the House is very serious in that. There is only one thing which the coalowner sees, the wages earned by the workmen. He overlooks the fact that an ill-paid worker is never a good worker, and that it reduces the spending power of the people. I travelled in the train to-day with some people who were not Labour, who were very strong in connection with this strike, and who were telling some visitors from the United States about the extreme people that were fomenting strikes in this country. Those people were very angry and they would have been angrier only that I suggested that a miner here got as much in a week as a miner in the United States got in a day. They could not understand why, but the facts are there. The miner is getting seven dollars a day in the United States and about the same amount is being offered here for a full week's work. I sincerely hope, even at this late hour, that those on the Government Benches will reconsider their action. They have taken up the employers' side from the first. That is another blunder added to the rest.
This country is bleeding to death. One of our main exports was coal and, instead of exporting coal, the Government are beginning to import coal. It is immaterial how much we quarrel among ourselves, for the fact is that the nation as a nation is becoming poorer under the rule of a Conservative Government. The Secretary for Mines would not agree to a suggestion of the hon. Member for Spennymoor, that the mines should be worked. Why should not the mines be worked? I thoroughly believe
that that was the solution from the beginning. I have never believed in those losses in connection with coal. I know they can supply us with figures giving their losses, but, taking everything in connection with the coal trade, I have never believed in those losses. If the Government had been strong enough to make a settlement with the miners on the lines of the Commission's Report and to send them back on the wages they had and on the same working conditions, then they could have gone on with the policy of re-organisation. If the minowners had refused to agree, then the Government should have told them to stand aside and have taken charge of the mines until such time as they came to their senses. I do not believe the employers would ever have allowed that. They would have gone on with it and our difficulties would be much less than at the present time.
Now the Government are introducing legislation extending the working time. They are going to buy coal with the miners idle and likely to be idle. Yet every day with the miners idle the country as a whole is becoming poorer. I hope that the people in the country are paying close attention to the work of the Government in connection with this dispute. I am one of those men who believed in the honesty of your Prime Minister. I always liked to feel that he was a very good man who had got into bad company. I am convinced now that he has failed in this, and I do not think it will be any use his trying to bring about a settlement so far as the miner is concerned. They have no faith whatever in him, and I am not sure that they have much more in the Secretary for Mines. The Secretary for Mines made a reference to the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) being turned down by something that happened in the ranks of the Conservative party. Is your Conservative party as strong to-day as you want us to believe on this side of the House? Is the Conservative party as strong to-day? [HON, MEMBERS: "Stronger!"] You are so strong that you are looking for another Prime Minister.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Member that I stopped the Secretary for Mines when he strayed into the path of general political speculation.

Mr. SULLIVAN: I want to convince the Government that the methods they are adopting are curing nothing. It is said the people whom I live amongst are not suffering seriously. In some cases it is starvation. I know hon. Members opposite say that everybody goes to the parish who cannot get money. I want to tell them there are people who have not gone to the parish, and will not go to the parish. Those people are suffering as a result of the action of the Government. The Government have no right to take sides. They have allied themselves with their friends, and the miners have no faith in them, and I feel that the people of the country are beginning to share the feelings of the miners. The Government have run from blunder to blunder. One of the effects of the Government's purchase of coal will be much the same as in 1921. Your methods of buying are defective. Your methods of buying must be defective, because your friends that buy for you will take care that they get something out of the deal. When we get a settlement, the people who take the coal will be quite willing to get rid of it. After all, foreigners only buy our coal because they need it, and it is a better coal. The coal they sell us is not suitable for quite a lot of things. The railways will not praise it, the people who control gas works will not praise it; they take it only because they cannot get anything else; but whenever we begin to produce coal again, if ever we do, that foreign coal will then only be regarded as lumber and rubbish. I sincerely hope this action of yours to-night will make more positive the feeling of resistance that the miners have shown. In the mining districts the miners are more bitter to-day than they were at the beginning. If the Government want to buy coal I would let them go on buying as much as they liked, and I would advise the miners to give up their occupation and let the people who want coal go and get it at the wage offered.

Mr. TINKER: I agree with the Secretary for Mines upon one point in his speech, and that is that the Government's purpose is to look after the essential services, but I wish to criticise them on their claim that they have done their duty and tried to settle the dispute. I maintain that at no period in the dispute have they handled it in the right way. If they had done so, there would have
been no question of voting money to buy coal, because the British miners would have been giving of their best. How have the Government attempted to handle the situation? They did say, first of all, that they were willing to accept the findings of the Royal Commission, if and when the other two parties agreed. That was only a tentative offer, and immediately they got the chance they slipped away from it, and we find now they have made the very worst offer that could be put before the miners, namely, an extension of the working day. It is the worst blunder any Government could have made. I was attending meetings yesterday to find out what the position was likely to be. I understand the Government thought that if they passed this Bill into law the miners would return to work. I wish the Government to watch the situation from now onwards, and if there is any sign of weakening in. the ranks of the miners on the hours question I shall be very much surprised. In asking for this £3,000,000 are the Government preparing for a long struggle? If that be their intention, they are not doing the right thing; if, on the other hand, they are thinking of a settlement, then they ought not to have asked for so much money. They might have been content with asking for £1,000,000, and seeing how far that would go. As they have asked for this large sum, I can only think they are anticipating a long struggle and are prepared to carry on.
I hope they realise that the British miner is entitled to have the situation thoroughly examined, and the most charitable thing I can say is that the Government have taken up their present attitude because they do not understand the actual position in which the miners are. Last week the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. Dixey) was criticising the wages of the miners and quoted a statement from one of the Members on this side. He said they were earning wages of from £6 to £13 a week. I would like to give one or two instances of what they actually do earn. Just before the stoppage I had occasion, as miners' agent, to take two cases into the County Court. One case meant an examination of the wages as between a day wage man and a collier in order to assess the amount of compensation that was due to a man who was only able to do day
work as against collier's work. The judge, after examining the whole of the wages for that district, agreed that the figures were 43s. for a day wage man and 55s. for a piece-rate coal getter.

Mr. MARDY JONES: That is for a week, not a day.

Mr. TINKER: For a week. I took it hon. Members would know that.

Mr. JONES: They would take it as a day. They will take anything.

Mr. TINKER: I give them more credit than you care to do. There was another case in Leigh County Court concerning a man named Flanagan, who fell down on his way home. The point which had to be fought in the County Court was whether he should get compensation or not. It was agreed with the colliery company that he was one of the best workmen, and that he attended the pit every day he could, and in that man's case the average wage for a week was 55s. There are two cases in two separate County Courts in Lancashire, one St. Helens and the other Leigh, where the top wage, on the average, was 55s. a week. I put that against the statement that the men get £6 to £13 a week. It is only in compensation claims that we are able to get the real average wage for the worker, and I wish the House to free their minds from any doubt as to what the wages of the men are to-day.
Another statement by the hon. Member for Penrith was that if we got different leaders from Cook and Smith, got men who were not so obstinate, there might be a settlement. That tale has been told to us time without number.

Mr. HANNON: On a point of Order. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I would like to ask if the hon. Member is in order in discussing on this Vote the merits of the dispute.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This is a new service of £3,000,000 for the importation of coal, and it is not out of order to discuss the reasons which make it necessary to purchase this coal.

Mr. TINKER: I have been trying to keep within the rules of order as well as I possibly can. I was referring to the statement made by some of our critics to the effect that but for our leaders, Mr. Herbert Smith and Mr. Cook, the strike might be settled. I am prepared to say that those two leaders
are speaking the voice of the Miners' Federation. Mr. Cook has been all through the coalfields within the last fortnight addressing meetings, and 20,000 men have been present at some of the meetings, where a unanimous decision has been arrived at to carry on the struggle. Therefore it cannot be said that these two leaders do not represent the views of the miners. They are only following the same line that was taken up during the lock-out in 1921. Mr. Herbert Smith was a miners' leader in the 1921 lock-out. His colleagues were Messrs. Smillie and Hodges. They were criticised then as Messrs. Cook and Smith are being criticised at present, but we are now told that we had sound leaders in 1921. The leaders are- doing exactly what the men want them to do. The Home Secretary made an attack the other day and he said that what the-miners were now doing would mean that oil would supersede coal. I should welcome the day when oil would supersede coal, because it is almost degrading for anyone to work in the coal industry under present conditions. I would like to point out, however, that oil could be got from coal without the smallest difficulty.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think that is hardly in order on this Vote.

Mr. TINKER: The Home Secretary the other day mentioned the use of oil' in this connection, and he said that certain hotels were making use of oil, and the right hon. Gentleman was allowed to use that argument.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the Home Secretary made those observations on this particular Vote, then the hon. Member is quite in order in replying to them.

Mr. TINKER: If the Home Secretary would turn his atttntion to page 24 of the Coal Report, he would find there a very exhaustive account of what might happen if the Government would take up this question of extracting oil from coal, and then there would be no need for us to import oil from across the seas, and this would produce more employment in this country. I hope the Government will realise the position. I do not object to the Government looking after our essential services, but I object to the way in which they have managed the coal situation, and the necessity for
importing coal at the present time is due to the way in which the Government have handled this question.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I always listen with interest to the speeches made by the hon. Member for Leigh, because he generally speaks with moderation. On this occasion, however, I think he has gone beyond his usual mark. I want to point out that the opinions expressed by the last two speakers with regard to the purchase of coal are delivered by hon. Members representing mining constituencies, but they cannot speak, as some of us can, on behalf of districts not concerned with the coalowners or the miners, which want a supply of coal in order to carry on the industries. The fishing industry is one of our great industries, and we have to depend on coal to carry out the fishing, which is so necessary for bringing food to this country and providing work and wages for a large number of men. The larger owners of fishing vessels are able to send their ships across to foreign ports where they can take on cargoes of coal and then visit the fishing grounds, but the smaller boats cannot afford to do this, and they are a class of people who ought to be kept in employment, and possibly through this purchase of coal by the Government they will be able to carry on their avocation.
Another class have to receive some consideration, and that is the householders and the smaller traders. For these reasons I welcome the action of the Government. With regard to what has been said about the purchase of coal having anything to do with the^ Government siding with the mineowners, it is quite untrue because this foreign coal is being purchased in the interests of our home industries, and the Government would be lacking in its duty if it did not provide coal for our essential services. The hon. Member for Bothwell mentioned the fact that when the trouble was over, and British coal was available, the users of coal in this country would soon leave this rotten stuff alone. I am in touch with some of our greatest exporters of coal who have now become importers, and I want to point out to those connected with mining that the old story about the great superiority of British coal is beginning to be doubted by the people who are now using imported coal. Those who are deeply
interested financially in our coal trade have been very much impressed by the quality of the coal imported, and they are very much concerned about the future. I think the Government are doing their duty by asking for this Vote, and I cannot see why even miners' representatives should object because, after all, the working people are going to get the benefit of this policy.

Mr. WHITELEY: I was very much surprised indeed to see these Supplementary Estimates. I have just returned from the Wallsend district where the miners have been told that they are locked out because the foreign miners arc blacklegging in. order to break the strike. That is what they are being told by the candidate representing the party opposite which has brought this Estimate forward. I would like to point out, however, that it is not the foreign miner who is black-legging, but those people who from morn till night are continually shouting "Buy British goods," and who are all the time seeking foreign coal merchants from whom to purchase coal in order to break the resistance of the British miners. Therefore, I say that this is the real answer to the Tory case in the Wallsend Division. Here is their own Government seeking to import coal for the purpose of breaking the resistance of the miners of this country.
The Secretary for Mines said it was their job to secure the importation of coal, either through Government agencies or by any other private means—and the more the merrier, in order to keep the price down—in order that they might attend to the essential services of the country. I do not think that that is the purpose of any Government in this country, when a trade dispute is going on of the kind with which we are faced to-day. I know that the hon. Member for St. George's (Mr. Erskine) will not agree with this, because he has interjected once or twice, " Why not send your men back?" I would ask him, is he prepared to send his folks down the pit to hew coal for 8½ hours a day for an average wage of 8s. 7d. and a subsistence wage for datal workers of 6s. 8½d. per day? I agree that a far better policy than is portrayed in this Supplementary Estimate would be to get the same gentlemen who were engaged in assisting the country during the general
strike to accept the same terms and produce coal in order to help the country in its present difficulty, but of course there is no possibility of that kind of thing ever being accomplished.
Then the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) says that the fishing industry ought to have consideration. I agree; the Government ought to give that industry consideration. The Government ought to treat fishermen just as they ought to treat the miners of this country, and not adopt a policy of this kind, which is simply a policy of trying to break the resistance of the miners and of forcing them to accept conditions which no man in this House can justify as conditions which citizens of this country ought to be compelled to accept for working either in the mines or anywhere else. Therefore, I say it would probably be well for the Government, rather than continuing a policy of this kind, to sit down and examine their own Command Papers which they issue quarter by quarter from the Mines Department. They will find there, if they have the desire to find it, a solution for the present difficulty in the coal mines of this country. They know as well as we do that the lengthening of hours and the reduction of wages is no possible solution for the present difficulty.
I do not intend to go over the whole of the ground in connection with this dispute, but I do say that, if the Government continue their present policy, and import coal through every avenue that they can, it will mean that, when the end of the dispute comes, if ever it does come, we are again going to be in the same position as in 1921, and thousands of our people are going to be still unemployed because the stocks of imported coal have not been got rid of. I say that a Government who are prepared to pay £3 a ton or more for foreign coal, and keep their own miners idle because they are not prepared to accept a starvation wage, are not fit to govern any country, and you may be sure that the men and women in the North of England have made up their minds to give the Government a real answer on this issue, which is the only issue that is being fought in the Wallsend Division. The facts are being put before these people, because you have men and women there who have gone through that experience for years, who are con-
nected with the mines, and I say to the Government that it will be in their own interest, even if they only take the ordinary narrow, selfish point of view, to cease adopting policies of this kind time after time in order to force men into a position which they themselves could not recommend their own friends to accept in similar circumstances. From the broader point of view, it will be well for the Government to look to the interests of the nation, and not to those of any particular section. The coalowners have done exceedingly well. These statements prove that from the end of the 1921 stoppage to the 30fch April of this year £60,000,000 profit has been made, which is 10 per cent, on the capital invested. It is as good a going concern as you will find, but the selfishness of those who are making these profits and want to continue making them, to the exclusion of those who are not in such a good position, shows that they have not the patriotism to stand together in the interest of the nation and give men decent wages and conditions, so that the coal industry might be used for the benefit of the whole of the people of this country.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. HANN0N: I should not have intervened in this Debate if it had not been for the somewhat impassioned appeal made by the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Whiteley). This Vote is to enable the Government to provide for the public utility services of this country at one of the most critical moments in our industrial history, and it would, indeed, be an extraordinary situation if the Government were so to neglect this immediate national responsibility as to place the country in the position of having no coal with which to carry on the essential services that are immediately necessary for the life of our people, pending the settlement of this unhappy dispute. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have devoted the whole of their speeches, not to the Vote itself, but to the merits of the coal stoppage as it now presents itself to the country. I must say that they have dealt with the subject with great moderation; indeed, the hon. Member for Blaydon always deals moderately and thoughtfully with questions in this House, and I have no complaint to make on that ground. But what is the position of the Government? I think every fair-minded man in
this country, even the miners themselves—not the extremists who go down on a Sunday and, in the heat and fury of the moment, address masses of 20,000 people, but the careful, cool, thoughtful miners—know very well that the whole of this economic tragedy is due to the stupid obstinacy of a few. Everyone who is familiar with the awful tragedy through which this country has passed since the very beginning of the trouble knows that the two so-called leaders—because I believe in my soul that if a ballot were taken of the miners of the country to-day the great majority would not follow them—these so-called leaders have taken up a-definite, stone-wall attitude against any modification of their original attitude towards the Report of the Royal Commission—[Interruption.] I never interrupt while hon. Gentlemen are making their speeches—

Mr. TINKER: Oh, yes; you interrupted me.

Mr. HANNON: That was merely to ask Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on a point of Order, with regard to the limits of the hon. Gentleman's discourse. I hope I shall be allowed the opportunity of saying the few words I wish to say on this subject. I am speaking in this House for a considerable body of organised industry, and organised industry, at this moment is faced with the most embarrassing situation it has had to contend against for a century. When you think of the Black Country to-day, with all its blast furnaces damped; when you think of the conditions of enterprise all over the Midlands where the industries have no coal, and of the number of people who have been thrown out of employment from day to day because these industries have not been able to get coal—when you think of all that, I ask hon. Members opposite, does that make no appeal at all to those responsible for the policy of the Miners' Federation? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] I have not seen any manifestations of any sort or kind on the part of those responsible for the policy of the Miners' Federation towards the vast mass of those people in other branches of industry who have been thrown out of employment by this stoppage. I really think that in this tragic position in our country's history those
responsible for the policy of the miners ought to give some thought to the people who are engaged in other enterprises and whose continuity of employment depends upon coal. The whole of the Debate this evening has, in the speeches from the other side, been on the merits of the coal stoppage. Arguments relating to the immediate position have hardly been touched upon at all. In their speeches hon. Members who have challenged the attitude of the Government have taken up the position that they charge the Government with taking up the quarrel of the coalowners. In the whole history of industrial disputes I do not remember a Government of this country which has taken up a more detached and impartial attitude. I have discussed this matter with the miners, with the trade union leaders and with the representatives of the great industrial organisations, and every single, man with whom I have argued the pros and cons of this exasperating and worrying situation has said to me that the Prime Minister, from the beginning of this trouble up to the present moment, has had the most careful consideration for all the parties concerned and has endeavoured to hold the scales evenly between the two main parties.
I believe in a policy of give-and-take and in a policy of compromise in all the industrial situations which I have had during the last 10 or 12 years, and I have always endeavoured to promote understandings between employers and employés. I have been preaching for years the policy of round-table conferences and adjustment of relations by mutual understanding and the improvement of the conditions of the workers. But I would ask hon. Members opposite, how can you find a basis of understanding or negotiation when one of the parties to the dispute absolutely refuses to meet the other side on any terms whatever? How can you have an acceptance of the Report if one party on one side says that in no circumstances will they make any concession at all? The coalowners and the Government will have to restore the industry to the condition which existed when the stoppage took place and they will have to endeavour to find a solution when the present situation has passed. But in this House I think we ought to endeavour to bring common sense and understanding and all
the beneficent feeling we can into a settlement of this serious national trouble which is inflicting incalculable lose upon every industry in the country. How can you do that with no offer of a conciliatory character from the other aide? You cannot come to an understanding as long as those responsible for the guidance of the working men simply refuse to concede one single item beyond their original agreement. This country is suffering from economic paralysis. Our industry is becoming depressed and our position in the foreign markets is being reduced from day to day. Unless we can get a settlement to this dispute by a generous understanding without bitterness, and unless we try to come to grips with the real problem in a spirit of give and take, we cannot find a solution. But if we are prepared to bargain upon fair and reasonable and accommodating grounds we can settle this awful stoppage which is devastating our national life, and we can endeavour to arrive at a better understanding and to obtain a settlement on the basis of the Royal Commission's recommendations, which will form the basis for permanent settlement.

Mr. MARDY JONES: If the closing remarks of the last speaker were to be carried out, it might be that we should come to an understanding. But, like other hon. Gentlemen opposite, the hon. Gentleman in his speech has revealed the attitude of mind which the coalowners and the Government have taken up in this matter from the very outset. They seem to have taken for granted that there is only one possible way out of the difficulty and only one possible way in which the industry can be put on an economic basis, and that is for the miners to accept a reduction of wages and an increase of hours.

Mr. HANNON: Temporarily.

Mr. JONES: But the temporary period is to last at least for five years. Have the Government and the coalowners considered whether there is not some other possible way in which the coal industry may be put upon an economic basis without making this reduction in the standard of life of the miners either by wages or hours or both? I do not think that the House has as yet addressed itself seriously to that question in any way. It has not considered the question of another way out. The last Royal Commission and the
Sankey Commission have given very broad invitations that there are other ways out. We have emphasised frequently in this House that the Samuel Commission, while they suggested that the miners might have to make a sacrifice in the sense of a reduction of wages, said very strongly at the same time that there must be sacrifice from other quarters. The miners from the very beginning had said that the first thing required of the industry is to reorganise it, root and branch. When all those steps have been taken and put into operation then, if evidence can still be shown that the economic situation is still unsatisfactory, the miners have, said that they will be willing to meet the facts of the situation. If the industry were thoroughly reorganised along the lines of the Sankey recommendations and the Samuel recommendations, then the industry would be in a prosperous condition once again. But the Government have not faced that position. They have not made any proposal in that direction. All they have done in the Mining Industry bill is simply to take certain recommendations of the Commission and they have left out the most important recommendations which would have put the industry upon an economic basis. They have divided the recommendations of the Commission. They have thought that by forcing the Eight Hours Act upon the miners they could break the back of the Miners' Federation by dividing the miners against each other and by inducing them to make local and district arrangements with their own coalowners. But nothing of the sort is going to happen. The miners of Great Britain are more determined to-day to resist district agreements, reduction of wages, and extension of hours than they were on the very first day of the stoppage. I am talking from experience. I understand the miner. My people for generations have been in the mining industry on the labour side. They have contributed in life and limb for generations in a way which, I think, has done more for the service of Great Britain than the services of all the lords in the land.
I, for one, would welcome a settlement in the industry to-morrow. I would welcome a resumption of work at every colliery in the land. I would welcome a wage agreement which would last three or five years, and enable us to get down to regaining our lost markets abroad and
improving our markets at home. But if you want a wage agreement which is to last, and some of the old bitterness to be removed, and the new spirit of goodwill engendered and strengthened, you have to start off with the realisation of this simple fact, that the miners really and honestly believe, from their daily effort to earn their daily bread, that the wage rates and the standard of life they had at their command on 30th April last represent rock-bottom for the British miner, and that they could not go below that rock-bottom without putting themselves in a position of serfdom or semi-slavery and semi-starvation. That is the hard fact you have to get over, and you cannot convince British miners, because it is they, after all, who are down the mines hacking the coal and drawing the wages week by week, and it is their wives who have to spend those wages, and in face of the excessive cost of living, for rents, for high rates, for the necessaries of life, they know that the wages which obtained when the stoppage began are bed-rock.
It is no use anyone picking out isolated cases of men who have earned £5 to £13 a week. The Commission has frankly admitted that the average wage, high and low, when the stoppage came was less than 51s. per week. If hon. Members only realised the conditions under which the miners work they would quite understand that occasionally men may for a few weeks, perhaps for a few years, earn individually high wages, because the coal face may be in an exceptionally good condition for that period, but if you want to get the miner's standard of life and his average wages you have to take him, bad and good together, over a long period of time. You want to take the miner from the time he starts, as I did, at 12 years of age and trace his wages week by week, year by year, for good and bad periods and find out what that average is in his command of the needs of life, and we find that he has a very low standard indeed. A man who may for a few weeks or months earn very high wages at one given coal face may find that same coal face would then suddenly alter in such a way that where a seam was perhaps six feet, with a good hard roof and good bottom, the coal working easy, and clearance from the management, through no fault of his and through no fault of the managers, instead of having six feet
of coal he may have two feet, and he may have to work twice as hard to earn a third of the money he earned before under the old conditions. Those things are-beyond the control of the management and beyond the control of the miners.
If we are to maintain our position as a great coal producing country, producing the basic of fuel from which we derive the power, light and heat for all other industries, and transport, and for sale abroad to increase our purchasing power of the world's goods and our own raw materials, we have to realise that we have to produce at least 250,000,000 tons of coal per year, and the more we can produce above that level the better. And to get that 250,000,000 tons, whether you have private enterprise or public, whether through your colliery concerns as to-day or whether through amalgamation and unification, with a national Board in charge, as recommended by the Commission, the great fact stands out that to get those 250,000,000 tons as a minimum national output to meet the national needs for home and foreign trade you have to get it from some of the poorest as well as the richest coalfields, and from some of the poorest as well as the richest seams in each coalfield. No coalfield is rich enough or big enough and no seams in any coalfield are big enough to produce the total quantity of coal required. Therefore, somehow or other, we have to get the total quantity that will meet the cost of production from the worst seams and the worst coalfields as well as the best seams and the best coalfields, all of which must be kept in employment in order to maintain the total national output. That is a simple economic fact. What we say as miners is that it does not matter where the miner is employed, whether in the richest or the poorest coalfields or on the richest or the poorest seams, that miner gives his labour of hand and brain—and I want to say from my experience as a miner that it requires a great deal of brain as well as hand-work to be a skilful miner—and risks life and limb in getting Chat coal, and he is entitled, irrespective of the seam on which he works, to a living wage for that labour. That is what the miners are standing for. That is why they insist upon a national wage agreement, to make sure that, whether a man is employed in Somerset or Bristol, in York-
shire, South Wales, or Scotland, that on the average he is to get a living wage which will enable him to maintain himself and has family in decency.
If the Government can solve that problem, they will find no one more ready to go back to work than the British miner. Those of us who know the conditions of mining are annoyed because hon. Members opposite take it for granted that the only way to make the industry successful, and to put it on an economic basis, is for the miner to accept a reduction of wages and an increase of hours. We say that there is another way out. The Sankey Commission, the Macmillian Commission, the Buckmaster Commission and the Samuel Commission have all indicated from time to time a way out. We believe that the only ultimate way out is nationalisation, but we are not pressing that, because the Government would not agree to it, with all the power they have in this House and in the country. If they are not in favour of public enterprise with unification, why not go in for private enterprise with unification in the industry? The way we suggest that they should do it is the way that was adopted in connection with the railways and the method now being adopted in connection with electricity. Why not recognise the fact that it will take two, three, perhaps four or five years to carry out fully all the substantial recommendations in all these Commissions, before we get the full benefit of the re-equipment of the mines that are capable of being equipped, t-he closing down of the inefficient mines, and maintaining such mines as are necessary for the total national" output for national needs?
Why not realise that the cost of reorganisation for the next few years should be met not by asking the miners to accept a reduction of wages and an increase of hours, but by a State guarantee or a State loan, call it what you like, to cover the cost of the capital expenditure necessary for the re-equipment of the industry, root and branch, in all its departments, however long it may take, or however short a time it may take, and that that should be repaid, if necessary, on the principle of deferred payments, after a few years of loan? Suppose we strike an average for the sake of illustration and say that three years will be necessary to put the
industry on sound lines. For those three years, it would be unfair to ask the miners to accept a lower standard of life, and it would be unfair to ask the coalowners to accept less than a fair return on the genuine capital invested in the industry. Let us take all that for granted. Let us assume that it requires a sum of £10,000,000, £15,000,000 or £20,000,000—it does not matter for my argument what the actual sum may be— to meet the total extra expenditure required to put the industry right on these lines. Let that be a charge upon the capital development of the mines. Let the repayment be deferred for the reasonable period required to put the reorganised mines into working condition, and then let the repayment be made gradually by annual instalments. That is all a question of actuarial adjustment.
If that were taken up and put into operation, I believe the Government would find that a very large number of coalowners in most of our coalfields would seriously consider that proposition. I know that some of them in certain coalfields, from conversations I and others have had with them, would seriously consider such a proposition. If some such proposal were made the Government would get the miners seriously to consider the situation, once they had convinced them that they meant business. Given that kind of proposal, and the atmosphere of good will which would be created among all parties, I think quite seriously that we should be able to promote a scheme, or schemes, that would embody the main features of the Sankey and the Samuel Reports. Get down to that and you will get a very early settlement, and a satisfactory settlement, to all interests concerned. While the coal industry of Great Britain has gone through periods of depression and prosperity in the past I believe, as one in the industry, that there is a greater future for the coal industry of Great Britain if we can utilise it to the full. There arc good economic reasons why it should be so. British coal, whether it is bituminous or semi-bituminous, or anthracite, is easily the best quality of any such coal anywhere in the world. There is no coal in Europe or America or anywhere else equal in quality, in calorific value and steam-raising value, to British coal, and the proof of that is that in the export mar-
kets of the world we can still sell British coal shillings per ton higher than any coal from any other country. Great Britain is the pioneer of mining in the world. We have taught all other countries most of all they know about mining to-day. No German or American mining engineer can teach anything to the British mining engineer.
We have at home in this small tight island the richest supply of coal relative to our size of any country in the world. That is our first advantage; quality. The second great advantage is the economic position of our coalfields in relation to the home and foreign markets. Our coalfields are scattered throughout England, Wales, and Scotland, and they are mostly on the seaboard, or near to it. All our great seaports, with the exception of London and Southampton, are very near the coalfields, and the cost of transport from the pit to the port should be relatively small. The cost of water transport is immensely cheaper than rail transport, and that is clear because we can send coal from South Wales and Northumberland and Durham cheaper to North Ger-German ports and the Baltic than the Germans can send it there themselves. In the economic position, of our coalfields, then, we have a great advantage. The third advantage we have, and I say this with all due modesty, is that the British miner, whether he is English, Welsh, Scottish, or Irish, is the most skilled miner in the world.
We have these three great advantages, the best quality of coal, our coalfields in the best economic position to the markets at home and abroad, and the best skilled men in the mining world; whether from the general labourer to the general manager I care not. Having these three great advantages why not utilise them along these lines of amalgamation and unification? Instead of asking the miners to meet the cost of this reorganisation for the next few years, why not do what you are doing for electricity? You are going to standardise that system, and the Government have guaranteed over £33,000,000 to meet the cost. Why cannot the Government make a proposal to guarantee a loan on deferred payments to help the coal industry in the same way? It would not be a subsidy. It would not be money for nothing. It would be a
loan or guarantee to enable the industry to recover and to get on its feet again on the lines on which all experts are agreed. Unless you do something of that sort it is useless to expect the British miner to give in. They will not give in. It would be contrary to the entire record of their efforts for generations past.
It is really a great national danger that we should by an Act of this House extend the hours in any industry. When the League of Nations was built up and the Washington Conference met in America, this country claimed the credit of sincerity in the effort to bring the world round to a 48-hours week. Yet it is a British Government which is breaking away from that principle of a great world ideal. We are going the wrong way to meet future world competition. Instead of persuading other countries to come up to our level of shorter hours, if we put into operation the Eight Hours Act the miners of Germany, of Belgium and of France will do the same thing. What would be the advantage to us if they work extended hours? That is not the way. Do not lower the standard of life of the miner, but ask yourselves seriously the question, Is it not possible to raise the standard of life? You would then get a different mental and moral attitude on the part of the miners towards the Government of the country. I urge the Government seriously to consider the situation in face of the fact—whether they believe it or not, it is a fact—that the miner knows from experience that he is at rock-bottom. Do not drive him lower. Let him stay where he is, and he will do his best during reorganisation to make the industry a sound concern once again.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have just been wondering what we were discussing. I see that it is a grant of £3,000,000 for the purchase of coal. I hope that the House will endeavour to come a little nearer to the subject.

Mr. SPENCER: I quite agree that, as far as the essential services have to be maintained, perhaps the Government are under a responsibility to maintain them. The hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) deplored the continuance of the stoppage, and said it was essential to make this purchase of coal. As far as I understand him, I endorse that remark. I further endorse his remark
when he said, "Cannot we bring this stoppage to an end?" How are you going to do that? For two or three minutes I shall apply my mind to seeking an answer to that question. I am certain that you are not going to bring it to an end by mutual recriminations. I cannot conceive anything worse at the present time than that that side or this should begin to seek to allot blame for the stoppage.

Mr. HANNON: I did not make any recriminations.

Mr. SPENCER: The impression on my mind was that the hon. Member did so. He said that the leaders of the men have been very obstinate, that they did not move, and a lot of things of that kind which reflected discredit upon the chosen leaders of the men.

Mr. HANNON: That was not recrimination, but a statement of fact.

Mr. SPENCER: That is the unfortunate thing about all these remarks. We might from this side say that it was a statement of fact that the Government had blundered seriously. We should be supported by many of its leading newspaper writers and probably we might say that that was a statement of fact. I deplore the starting of a campaign of recrimination, whether from this side or the other side, at this time. The time may come and probably will come—as it ought to come—when we shall have to seek to allocate blame and to find out why there has not been an earlier settlement, but we are not going to show any good purpose by pursuing that policy in this House to-night. How are we going to settle the dispute? First, we have to find out what is the mentality of the men. Let us concede, if you like, that the Government have acted with the best intentions; that they thought the Eight Hours Act was going to have the effect of giving the men a choice which they would take with regard to lengthened hours rather than a reduction of wages. If I concede, for the purposes of argument, that the Government acted with the best possible intentions, they must admit that their action has failed, that the men are not responding to it and that, instead of making a way for the men to escape, it has had the effect of hardening the hearts and minds of the men.
If there is one question on which the workmen in the British coalfields are united it is on the question of opposition to the longer clay. Therefore, that being their position, if the Government and the hon. Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham are anxious to settle the dispute, the best thing they can do—as a gesture indicating their good intentions— is to withdraw the Eight-hours Act. In yesterday's "Observer"—I do not know who was the writer but I do not think it was Mr. Garvin himself—the contributor of "Notes by the Way" said that, in his opinion, this thing would have to be with-drawn, that we should have to start over again, go back to the Report and find in the Report the elements of settlement. I believe it is there we shall find a settlement and the best thing the Government supporters can do, if they are anxious for a settlement is to induce the Government to withdraw the Eight-hours Act and to say to the Miners' Federation and to the workmen, "This is an evidence of our good intentions towards you." The hon. Member for the Moseley Division said the Government had tried to act impartially and to steer an even keel. Unfortunately, the passing of the Eight-hours Act has revealed to the minor that the Government have gone upon the side of the coalowners.

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot allow hon. Members to go back upon the Debates of last week dealing with a Measure which is now on the Statute Book. The same Rules apply in this case as in the Committee of Supply, and we are entitled now to discuss only the matter which is dealt within this Vote.

Mr. SPENCER: I will not trespass further in that direction. My only anxiety is to show a way in which we can put an end to the importation of coal by restarting our own mines. I will obey your order, Sir, very strictly, and leave the matter there, only saying that, in my opinion, the step which I have suggested will have to be the first step taken if we are to put an end to this dispute. If that step were taken, it would show the men that the Government had the best possible intentions towards them, and we could then turn our minds to what is in the Report. The question that is put to me, when I speak of a settlement on the lines of the Report, is, "What evidence have you
that the Government will accept it? "I should like a clear declaration from the Government that, whatever anybody else may do, they will accept the Report in its entirety. I should like them to make clear to the world where they stand.
At present the miner does not know where the Government stand. He does not know where the coalowner stands, and I am not quite certain that he knows where we stand ourselves. That is the general situation. If the Government supporters are anxious for a stoppage of the dispute, let the Government itself first declare emphatically for the Report. Those who want to end the dispute will make it easier for Members on this side of the House, who also want a settlement, if they clearly state to the country that they will accept the Report. Unless you do that, I am certain that this thing has to drag on, and it is going to be most unfortunate, leaving in its train a very bad feeling. The hon. Member for the Moseley Division said he wanted to cultivate a better spirit and to see between workmen and masters that spirit of mutual trust and confidence which ought to animate all men one towards another. I will reciprocate sentiments of that character. I want to see them, but I am certain we are not going to get them if we let these things remain where they are. We shall get them if the Government again take the lead, as they ought to take the lead, and say that, as far as they are concerned, they are even now, at this late hour, willing to hold out the olive branch to the Miners' Federation in the way of accepting the Samuel Report.

Mr. SMILLIE: Perhaps you may find it necessary, Mr. Speaker, to pull me up if I wander from the point on this Supplementary Estimate, which is for the purpose of importing coal. Why do we want to provide coal for the nation? Because there is a stoppage in the coal-mining industry. Who is to blame for the stoppage? The general Press of the country and hon. Members opposite have done everything in their power to fix the blame on the miners, but I want to appeal to the sense of justice and fair play of this House. The miners did not give notice that they desired to stop work. The mineowners gave notice that the mines would be shut down unless the miners
accepted certain conditions, which were made perfectly plain. Because of its nature, because of the dangers connected with it, the mining industry has received more legislative attention, starting right away back to 1845 and 1846, than any other branch of industry in this country. Never at any period in the history of this House, when dealing with mining legislation has it passed any Act or added a Section to any Act until convinced of the necessity for doing so, and when it is convinced of the necessity for doing so, it will take a great deal to make it change its mind and undo that legislation.
Now I want to call attention to the notices posted up in the mines of this country. The notices did not merely intimate reductions in miners' wages. They intimated that, if the miners desired to prevent further reductions than those stated, if they worked longer hours, the reduction in wages would be less. What is the meaning of the miners working longer hours? A Measure passed by this House, limiting the hours of the mine workers to a certain number of hours per day, was still on the Statute Book when the mineowners deliberately posted notices inviting the miners to break the law and work longer hours. I have raised the question before, and I put it to-day, because it has a dose connection with this £3,000,000 for the importation of coal into this country: Has there been any prosecution, either threatened or effected, up to the present lime, against a mineowner for trying to get miners to break the law?
I want to put it to hon. Members opposite, and to the House generally, that if the mineowners, when they posted their notices, had also said that the age at which boys were to descend the mine must be 10 years, and the womenfolk were to be permitted to work underground; if those notices had been placed at the pit bank as a condition of employment in the mines and the miners had stopped work, would right hon. Gentlemen opposite have brought in legislation here to legalise the employment of children of 10 underground? If not, why not? Because it is as much a breach of the Mines Act for the miners to work longer hours as it would have been to put women and children underground.
Suppose the mineowners, in posting their notices had said that because of
the cost of production they were going to limit the cost of officials, and were not going to employ, as provided by Parliament, certificated managers to manage the miners, and the miners had agreed to accept that? Would right hon. Gentlemen have agreed to implement that as against safety? I feel sure they would not. I feel sure their consciences would have been roused against the employment of children underground, or of women going back to the mine. It was just as much a breach of the law to ask the miners to work longer hours as it would be to do any of the things I have just mentioned.

Mr. HANNON: But what about the 60 days during which the miners are allowed to work?

Mr. SMILLIE: The mineowners, in putting their notices up, did not mention the fact that they desired to take advantage of the Clause in the old Bill for the men to work on the 60 days. Everyone on the opposite side of the House knows that. Their intention was to get the Government to pass an Eight Hours Bill, to change the law enacted in 1919, of seven hours, and they knew perfectly well that they could get the Government to do it. Whether they had an assurance beforehand or not I do not know, but they were convinced that the Government would pass the eight hours, in order to assist the mineowner, and not in order to bring about a settlement. In order to assist the mineowner to put the miners into the mine this House is going back on the legislation passed some years ago.
I am exceedingly anxious that there should be a settlement of the mining dispute. I was exceedingly anxious that the stoppage should not take place, if it could be avoided, but I have latterly been feeling, and feeling very strongly, that the men-folk, the women-folk and the children should not be under the necessity of having less than before. No matter how anxious I might be to avoid a dispute, I was not going to avoid a dispute at the expense of seeing the children getting less food and less clothing, or the mother getting less than she was then getting. For that reason I was prepared to back up as strongly as I possibly could the refusal of the men to start under the new conditions, when I knew from all experience of the mines that seven hours underground is quite sufficient for men and
boys to be employed. More than that, I feel very strongly that it having been proved to this House that seven hours was long enough, it was wrong for the employers to go back on it and that it was wrong for the House to try and go back on it. I am never guilty of saying bitter or provocative things and I deeply regret when I hear other say them. When it is said that Cook and Smith are chiefly to blame for this position, I remember that that has been said about every leader the miners have had. I am old enough to remember it being said about one of the most noble and upright men that ever sat in this House, Thomas Burt, who in the early days was reported to be the devil behind the scenes. The same thing was said of Benjamin Pickard; John Wilson was another. It was said that if the miners only got rid of them everything would have been all right. Then I and others came into the picture. Only a, few short years ago the blackest devil of them all was myself. I was supposed to be the man that was keeping the miners idle, although I and Burt and Pickard and Wilson and the others had settled 10 disputes for every one that was brought about, and although we have been the greatest factor in settling disputes.
It is not Herbert Smith or Cook that is to blame for this. This stoppage has been caused because the mine workers feel they ought not to work for lower wages than they were getting, that they ought not to work longer hours, and especially that they ought not to accept conditions laid down by the employers which were a deliberate breach of the Act of Parliament itself. This House, instead of condemning the miners, ought to have justified them and been behind them in refusing to break the law. I do not want to prophesy how long this dispute is going to continue. Personally I would almost give my life to see it satisfactorily settled at the earliest possible moment, or hour, or day, but it is not going to be settled on the terms offered by the employers within a few weeks. I know the employers as well as anybody, and I know that amongst them there are as upright and honourable men as ever lived on God's earth, and I know that there are others, to whom Cook and Herbert Smith could not Sold a candle for wickedness, who do not care how the
miners are housed, who do not care how the miners are fed, who care only for dividends. Unfortunately they are the chief movers on the other side in this dispute. If we have villains on our side, it is not our side only that has the villains of this piece.
I would desire, if there was any way out of this difficulty, to see a fair and reasonable settlement of it. I believe the position of the mineowners at the present time—I do not mean the decent ones, but 1 mean the leading mineowners—is that they feel now that the Government should keep their hands off. It is quite true that they would be in favour of the Government in the meantime passing this Estimate and spending £3,000,000 in importing coal here to keep some of our important industries going. But the position of the mineowners is that they desire that the Government should not do anything to settle this dispute. They want the Government to keep the ring open and they will fight the miners to a finish. They can fight the miners to a finish. There is no hunger in their homes, none of their children go about bare-footed. Their children are all well-fed, as children ought to be, well-housed and well-educated. Consequently they can starve the miners into subjection. It may take another 10 weeks; I believe it will take another 10 weeks. They may starve them into subjection, but I submit to this House, to the Minister of Mines, and to the Government that that never settled any dispute.

That is not the proper way to settle any dispute, whether between individuals or bodies of men. To count on the mere

weakness or inability of one of the sides to hold out will not bring a truthful or righteous settlement of the dispute. I believe there could be a righteous settlement of it, and I believe the Government could secure it. I believe it is the duty of the Government to call both sides together again and endeavour to try to get a way out of this dispute which will not be through the final hunger and starvation of the men and the women and the children in the industry. If the dispute were settled by joint mutual agreement—with the intervention of the Government, it may be—then there is a likelihood that we might have a lasting peace in the mining industry. If it is settled by the starvation of the mining folk, there will be no lasting peace in the mining industry, and it is not in the interests of this country as a whole, and not in the interests of its industries, that from time to time we should have a stoppage in the most important industry of all. I look forward, when the settlement is brought about, if it is brought about on lines fair and reasonable to both parties, to its being a settlement which in all probability will pave the way to continued peace and harmony in the mining areas.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I would appeal to the House now to come to a Division. We have had a long discussion to-day, following a very long discussion in Committee, and the Secretary for Mines has replied.

Question put, "That '£3,000,000' stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 278; Noes, 100.

Division No. 364.]
AYES.
[8.17 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn., N.)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Agg-Gardner, Rt, Hon. Sir James T.
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Albery, Irving James
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Herbert Dennis (Hertford. Watford)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Crawfurd, H. E.
Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hills, Major John Walter


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool.W, Derby)
Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Hilton, Cecil


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Hogg, Rt.Hon.Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Apsley, Lord
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fltzroy


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Holt, Capt. H. P.


Astor, Viscountess
Dalziel, Sir Davison
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Atholl, Duchess of
Davidson,J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Balniel. Lord
Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hudson, R. s. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Dixey, A. C.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Bennett, A. J.
Drewe, C.
Huntingfield, Lord


Berry, Sir George
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hurd, Percy A.


Betterton, Henry B.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hurst, Gerald B.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Hutchison,G.A.Clack(Midl'n & P'bl's)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Blundell, F. N.
Ellis, R. G.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Elveden, Viscount
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth
Jacob, A. E.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Brass, Captain W.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Jephcott, A. R.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Jones, G W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Briscoe, Richard George
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Ford, Sir P. J.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Forrest, W.
Kidd, J. (Linllthgow)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
King, Capt. Henry Douglas


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Kintoch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Buckingham, Sir H.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Knox, Sir Alfred


Bullock, Captain M.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lamb, J. O.


Burman, J. B
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Ganzoni, Sir John
Little. Dr. E. Graham


Butt, Sir Alfred
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Loder, J. de V.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Looker, Herbert William


Campbell, E. T.
Goff, Sir Park
Lowe, Sir Francis William


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Gower, Sir Robert
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Cayzer, sir C. (Chester, City)
Grace, John
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Grant, Sir J. A.
Lumley, L. R.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Macdonald, Capt. p. D. (I. of W.)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Greene. W. P. Crawford
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Greenwood,Rt. Hn.Sir H.(W'th's'w,E)
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.SirJ.A.(Birm.,W.)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Macintyre, Ian


Chapman, Sir S.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
McLean, Major A.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Grotrian, H. Brent.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Gunston, Captain D. W.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Christie, J. A.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Macquisten, F. A.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Clarry, Reginald George
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Clayton, G. C.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hanbury, C.
Margesson, Captain D.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Marriott, Sir J. A, R.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Harris, Percy A.
Meiler, R. J.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Harrison, G. J. C.
Merriman, F. B.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Meyer, Sir Frank


Collins Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Haslam, Henry C.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hawke, John Anthony
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Cope, Major William
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Couper, J. B.
Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Morden, Col. W. Grant


Morrison, K. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Murchison, C. K.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Rye, F. G.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Nelson, Sir Frank
Salmon, Major I.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Waddington, R.


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W


Nuttall, Ellis
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Oakley, T.
Savery, S. S.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Oman, Sir C.
Shaw, Lt.-Col A.D.Mcl. (Renfrew,W)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Wells, S. R.


Pennefather, Sir John
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Penny, Frederick George
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Skelton, A. N.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Perring, William George
Slaney, Major p. Kenyon
Wilson. M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Smith, R.W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Philipson, Mabel
Smithers, Waldron
Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George


Pleiou, D. p.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Pilcher, G.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Withers, John James


Preston, William
Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden, E.)
Wolmer, Viscount


Ramsden, E.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Womersley, W. J.


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Wood. E.(Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Remer, J. R.
Storry-Deans, R.
Woodcock. Colonel H. C.


Remnant, Sir James
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Rentoul, G. S.
Strickland, Sir Gerald
Wragg, Herbert


Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Rice, Sir Frederick
Styles, Captain H. Walter
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich'


Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser



Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Commander B. Eyres-Monsell and Colonel Gibbs.


Ropner, Major L.
Tasker, Major R. Inlgo



NOES.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Riley, Ben


Amman, Charles George
Hayday, Arthur
Ritson. J.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hayes, John Henry
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Baker, J. (Wolverthampton, Bilston)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Scrymgeour, E.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Scurr, John


Barnes, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Sexton, James


Barr, J.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Batey, Joseph
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sitch, Charles H.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smillie, Robert


Broad, F. A.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bromley, J.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Snell, Harry


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Buchanan, G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, T.
Sullivan, J.


Compton, Joseph
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sutton, J. E.


Cove, W. G.
Kenyon, Barnet
Taylor, R A.


Dalton, Hugh
Kirkwood, D.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Day, Colonel Harry
Lansbury, George
Thurtle, E.


Dennison, R.
Lawrence, Susan
Tinker, John Joseph


Duncan, C.
Lawson, John James
Townend, A. E.


Gardner, J. P.
Lee, F.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Gibbins, Joseph
Lowth, T.
Viant, S. P.


Gillett, George M.
Lunn, William
Wallhead, Richard C.


Gosling, Harry
MacDonald, Rt. Hon.J. R.(Aberavon)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mackinder, W
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Greenall, T.
March, S.
Whitelev. W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Montague, Frederick
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Windsor, Waller


Groves, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Ponsonby, Arthur



Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)
Purcell. A. A.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards.


Hardle, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



division No. 365.]
AYES
[10.57 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Blades, Sir George Rowland
Campbell, E. T.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Blundell, F. N.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R.(Prtsmth.S.)


Albery, Irving James
Boothby, R. J. G.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Chapman, Sir S.


Alexander, Sir Win. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Bowater, Sir T. Vanslttart
Charterls. Brigadier-General J.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool,W. Derby)
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Christie, J, A.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Brass, Captain W.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Apsley, Lord
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Clayton, G. C,


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Cilve
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Aster, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Briscoe. Richard George
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brittain, Sir Harry
Conway, Sir W, Martin


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Cope, Major William


Bainiel, Lord
Broun-Llndsay, Major H.
Couper, J. B.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Blown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Courtauld, Major J. S.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)
Crooks, J. Smedley (Deritend)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Burman. J. B.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Galnsbro)


Bennett, A. J.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Cunllffe, sir Herbert


Better-ton, Henry B.
Butt, Sir Alfred
Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry


Bird, E. R. (Yorks. W. R., Skipton)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Daikeith, Earl of
Hume, Sir G. H.
Robinson, Sir T. [Lanes, Stretford)


Davidson,j.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Huntingfield, Lord
Ropner, Major L.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hurd, Percy A.'
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hutchison,G.A.Clark(Midl'n & P'bl's)
Rye, F. G.


Davies, Ma). Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovll)
Illffe, Sir Edward M.
Salmon, Major I.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Insklp, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Dawson, Sir Philip
Jackson, Sir H, (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Jacob, A. E.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Dixey, A. C.
Jephcott, A. R.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Drewe, C.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Savery, S. S.


Duckworth, John
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Scott, Sir Leslie (Livcrp'l, Exchange)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wills, Westb'y)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Shepperson, E. W.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Simms. Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Ellis, R. G.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Skeiton, A. N.


Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth
Lamb, J. Q.
Slaney, Major p. Kenyon


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George H.
Smith, R.W.(Aberd'n & Klnc'dine.C.)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Smith-Carinoton, Neville W.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Smithers, Waldron


Fanshawe, Commander G. D
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Ford, Sir P. J.
Loder, J. de v.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Looker, Herbert William
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Forrest, W.
Lougher, L.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sdon, E.)


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Luce, Mai.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Weslm'eland)


Frece, Sir Waller de
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Stott, Lleut.-Colonel W. H.


Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Macintyre, Ian
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Galbraith, J. F. W.
McLean, Major A.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Ganzonl, sir John
Macmillan, Captain H.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Gates, Percy.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
MacRobert, Alexander M,
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Glimour, Lt.-Col. Ht. Hon. Sir John
Maltiand, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Glyn, Major R G. C.
Mannlngham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Goff, Sir Park
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Gower, Sir Robert
Mason, Lieut. Col. Glyn K.
Thomson, Rt. Hen. Sir W. Mitchell-


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Meller, R. J.
Tinne, J. A.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Merriman, F. B.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Gretton, Colonel Fit. Hon. John
Meyer, Sir Frank.
Tryon, Rt. Hon, George Clement


Grotrian, H. Brent
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Guinness, Ht. Hon. Walter E.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Vaunhan-Morgan. Col. K. P


Gurston, Captain D. W.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Waddington, R.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hammersley, S. S.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Hanbury, C.
Murchison, C. K.
Watson, Rt. Hon. w. (Carlisle)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Welts, Dr. T.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Nelson, Sir Prank
Wells, S. R.


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wilder, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
White, Lieut. Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Haslam, Henry C.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hawke, John Anthony
Nuttall, Ellis
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Headiam, Lient.-Colonel C. M.
Oakley, T.
Williams.. Herbert G. (Reading)


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Oman, Sir C.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Heneage, Lleut.-Col. Arthur P.
Pennefnther, Sir John
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Penny, Frederick George
Wise, Sir Fredric


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Withers, John James


Herbert. Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Womersley, W. J.


Hills, Major John Waller
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wood. E.(Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Hilton, Cecil
Pleiou, D. P.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Hogg, Fit. Hon. Sir D.(St.Marylebone)
Preston, William
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Price, Major C. W. M.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon, Sir L.


Holt, Captain H. P.
Ramsden, E.
Wragg, Herbert


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Hopkins. J. W. W.
Reid, Captain A. S. C. (Warrington)
Young, Rt. Hon, Hilton (Norwich)


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Remer, J. R.



Hore-Belksha, Leslie
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Rice, Sir Frederick
Colonel Gibbs and Captain Margesson.


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)



Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney. N.)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Buxton, Rt. Hon, Noel


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Cape, Thomas


Ammon, Charles George
Broad, F, A.
Clowes, S.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Bromfield, William
Cluse, W. S.


Barnes, A.
Bromley, J.
Compton, Joseph


Barr, J.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Dalton, Hugh


Batey, Joseph
Buchanan, G.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)




Day, Colonel Harry
Kennedy, T.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Duncan, C.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Kirkwood, D.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Gardner, J. P.
Lensbury, George
Sitch, Charles H.


Gibbins, Joseph
Lawrence, Susan
Smillie, Robert


Gillett, George M.
Lee, F.
Snell, Harry


Gosling, Harry
Lindley F. W.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Graham, D, M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lowth, T.
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Greenall. T.
Lunn, William
Stephen, Campbell


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon.J. R.(Aberavon)
Sullivan, J.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mackinder, W.
Sutton, J. E.


Grundy, T. W.
MacLaren, Andrew
Taylor, R. A.


Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)
March, S.
Tinker, John Joseph


Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)
Murnin, H.
Townend, A. E.


Hardle, George D.
Naylor, T. E.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Oliver, George Harold
Vlant, S. P.


Hayday, Arthur
Pethlck-Lawrence, F, W.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Hayes, John Henry
Ponsonby, Arthur
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Potts, John S.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Purcell, A. A.
Whiteley, W.


Hirst, G. H.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Riley, Ben
Windsor, Walter


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Ritson, J.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Saklatvala, Shapuril



Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Scrymgeour, E.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards.


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Scurr, John



Kelly, W. T.
Sexton, James



Second Resolution read a Second time.

Ordered, "That further consideration of the Resolution be now adjourned."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Resolution to be further considered To-morrow.

The remaining Orders, were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Adjourned accordingly at Ten Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.